Despite deal, Argentine creditors continue opposing lifting injunctions

[Judi Lynn]

Mon Feb 29, 2016 5:42pm GMT

Despite deal, Argentine creditors continue opposing lifting injunctions

NEW YORK


Feb 29 Argentina's main holdout creditors on Monday urged a U.S. judge to not vacate orders that restricted the country from servicing its restructured debts, despite having reached a more than $4.65 billion agreement in principle to settle the litigation.

In a brief filed in Manhattan federal court, hedge funds including Elliott Management's NML Capital Ltd said that while they have an agreement to resolve the litigation, they continue to oppose the lifting of injunctions imposed in the case.

Such an order, the hedge funds said, would be "legally improper" as many other plaintiffs in the dispute have not settled with Argentina. (Reporting by Nate Raymond in New York)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/argentina-debt-court-idUKL2N1681A1?rpc=401

(Short article, no more at link.)

[forest444]

1. $4.65 billion for a $90 million purchase, and vultures are still blocking legitimate bondholders.

It may be shocking; but it's no surprise, because it's never really been about the money (NML and Aurelius already cashed in on their CDS insurance), or even politics (as many in Argentina itself believed when Cristina Kirchner was still in office).

It's about the highly successful Argentine debt restructuring from 2005 to 2010, and Washington's craven hostility toward the concept of third world debt restructuring - a policy which transcends whether or not a Republican is in the White House.

One would think that debt reorganization and restructuring would actually be encouraged, since it's often the only way creditors and bondholders can start collecting again. It certainly worked in Argentina, whose defaulted bondholders got a steep haircut initially; but were eventually made more than whole by the high interest rate on said bonds, as well as their appreciation in value (not bad, considering that most other investments lost value between 2005 and 2010).

That was the problem: it worked only too well. Whereas tax dodging corporations and poorly run cities like Detroit and Atlantic City, the rationale goes, can restructure their debts (much like individuals can under Chapter 11 bankruptcy), third world nations must not be allowed to do so.

http://www.jubileeusa.org/vulturefunds/vulture-fund-country-studies.html

Thank you for posting these disturbing - but hardly surprising - news.

[bemildred]

2. Yes, they hate the very idea of anybody getting away with their money, basically.

It's the principle of it.

Not unlike the banks here and their hatred of the very idea of homeowners gettng to keep their homes despite not making all the payments as originally agreed.

And that all goes back to their love for risk-free but highly profitable "investments".

[forest444]

3. "Their" money is the bonds' market value of $300 million or so - which is all anyone is entitled to.

Try going to your stockbroker, and asking $46.50 a share for a stock worth $3 a share (for which you paid no more than $1, btw).

Of course, if you can bribe a Nixon judge to back your claim and a fascist Argentine president to sweeten the deal by three fold overnight it's a different story.

[bemildred]

4. Right, but that's pragmatic, this is about dick-waving, being a big shot.

Nobody can take what's yours, see? Forcing people to do your will. It's personal, like with Trump, it's about winning, it's about showing off what a big swinging dick you are. Edit: I worked for a brokerage for three years or so, Wall Street really is all about the dick waving, it's all about the ego. They have so much money is used mainly to keep score.

[forest444]

5. Well said. They say money is the root of all evil; but I'd throw them one better:

It's the ego.

We all have one, sure; but in their case, their ego has them. The human condition, I suppose.

Thanks as always for your keen insights, bemildred. Say hi to everyone in SoCal!

[bemildred]

6. +1. nt