in loser Reihenfolge werden hier Meldungen zum Thema Pari Passu abgelegt


Abgeschickt von s0 am 16 Dezember, 2003 um 09:47:07:

Last weekend's political scandal (a senate bribery case during De la Rua's government) is unlikely to affect asset prices. Regarding government debt, yesterday a local paper reported that the government is about to change the payment mechanism on Bodens at Euroclear. If this is confirmed, we believe it would reveal that the government's lawyers see non-trivial risks of attachment of dollar Boden payment flows in Euroclear based on the implications of Nicaragua's case. It seems the government would send the payment to individual investors, as opposed to letting Euroclear distribute. This issue should progressively affect dollar Boden pricing, as the pool of investors could shrink dramatically if the only way to minimize attachment risk is to get paid domestically. After last week's comments from the US Treasury, and the delay in reviewing the IMF agreement, the government is now acknowledging G7 pressure on debt restructuring. We believe it is still too early to expect a significant rift with IFIs. Argentina's next significant payment to the IMF is on March 9 for about US$3 billion.
Martin AnidjarAC


Abgeschickt von s0 am 18 Dezember, 2003 um 09:56:58:

The government presented a petition on December 12 at the Southern District of New York Court for a clarification of what the “pari passu” clause in bond documentation really means (including its reach vis-àvis the IFIs' senior creditor status). The petition states that the interpretation taken by the Belgian courts in the Elliot versus Peru case is erroneous. The petition states that a clarification is needed so that “the Republic can continue to service its debt to creditors such as the IMF, and proceed with the voluntary restructuring of its private debt.” The petition appears to be geared to prepare ground for debt restructuring. However, it asks that a clarification should be issued before the current stay expires (January 31, 2004), given that the discovery process has started. Whether the government fears that Boden payments on early February are at risk, it is not obvious from this petition. It should be highlighted that the pari passu clause is phrased in terms of external indebtedness, the definition of which can be understood as excluding local law debt, or debt that emerged from a swap out of local currency debt. We do not claim to have a definitive legal opinion on Bodens, though we acknowledge this discussion should intensify through
January, potentially shrinking the pool of investors to those willing to receive payment in Argentina. The other aspect to highlight is that the New York court will have to clarify whether payments to IFIs are excluded from the pari passu clause. Basically, that
court seems to be being asked by Argentina to issue an opinion on the senior creditor status of IFIs. Investors
can read Lee Buchheit's arguments about the pari passu clause and its genesis in global bonds documentation in his paper now posted at EMTA's website (
Martin AnidjarAC


Abgeschickt von s0 am 19 Dezember, 2003 um 08:40:23:

Yesterday we pointed to Argentina's legal recourse last week as having implications for the IFI's “senior creditor status.” The legal memo presented by Argentina refers to the interpretation of the pari passu clause used in the Elliot case against Peru, and it also refers to payments to the IMF (supposedly already made by plaintiffs). The question is whether Argentina has connected the two that in order to protect future payments to the IMF (potentially after January 31, when execution orders are
expected), and to design an attachment-free postrestructuring payment mechanism, a clarification by a
New York court is needed. With respect to the “senior creditor status,” the court will have to recognize that it is a
de facto principle worth preserving, even though it is not de jure. In terms of market prices, Boden '08s could show support from recent statements by BCRA's Prat- Gay about inflation. He said that inflation during 2004 could be in a higher-than-expected 7-11% range. Investors bullish or neutral about the FX outlook should
see a higher expected total return in the peso inflation indexed instruments as a result of those statements.
Martin AnidjarAC


ARGENTINA: Gov't legal memo, pari passu, IFIs and Bodens

Here we summarize some of the facts and issues around Argentina's recent
legal recourse, in which it asks New York Judge Thomas Griesa to clarifythe
reach of the 'pari passu' clause in bond documentation. The memo presented
by Argentina claims that a clarification is needed in order to prevent
problems with Argentina's payments to the IMF once the current stay
on execution expires on January 31. Argentina's memo seems to ask the NY
judge to clarify whether the Belgian interpretation of the pari passu clause
holds or not (i.e. Elliott vs. Peru). Basically, the question is whether the
pari passu clause in bond documentation is only meant to prevent the legal
subordinated of debt, or whether it also means that when funds are not
enough to pay all creditors pro-rata payments should be implemented.
Belgium's appeals court ruling in the Elliott vs. Peru case appears to
impose the 'ratable payment' interpretation. In sum, Argentina's brief seems
to be after a clarification
that would kill the ratable payment concept, letting debtors make payments
as they wish (for a lengthy discussion of this issue see Lee Buchheit and
Jeremiah Pam's recent paper posted at If judge Griesa were to
produce an interpretation consistent with Buchheit et al, it would
significantly reduce the capacity of judgment holders to grab payment flows
(i.e. lower incentives to hold out). Argentina's memo brings the payments to
the IMF on the table. One interpretation is that the IMF is mentioned in the
memo only as an example, given that neither Bodens (domestic law) nor
potential post restructuring
instruments (too abstract) could be mentioned for legal purposes. Moreover,
the memo mentions that one of the plaintiffs against Argentina has already
indicated its intentions to attach IMF payment flows, which could be seen as
a justification for the defendants to seek that clarification. It remains an
open question whether judge Griesa could produce an interpretation of the
pari passu clause without having to make a statement on the IFI's preferred
creditor status.
In the very short-term, plaintiffs could question whether judge Griesa needs
to rule on this particular topic, whether it is relevant to the case at
hand. Additionally, given the broad potential implications of this decision,
third parties could attempt to influence the decision by submitting an
'amicus brief' (an un-solicited opinion from a third party for the judge to
consider). For example, a G7 government could feel that the risk of a ruling
on the IFIs preferred creditor status is relevant enough to get involved.
Bondholders that have recently raised question about such de facto concept
could also attempt to participate via an 'amicus brief'. These events could
happen during the first two weeks of January, if not before.
In terms of market implications, there are at least two relevant scenarios.
On the one hand, Judge Griesa could confirm Buchheit et al view on pari
passu without touching upon the role of the IFIs. In this scenario, the
attractiveness of holding out in a debt restructuring process falls. In some
sense, the market would be back to the pre-Elliott vs. Peru world. On
the other hand, judge Griesa could confirm the pari passu interpretation
given by the Belgian courts, which could maximize the reach of judgments in
disrupting payments flows, potentially those to the IFIs. Finally, the other
relevant dimension to this discussion is whether a decision by judge Griesa
could amount to making law on a so far de facto principle ? the
preferred creditor status of IFIs. If a legal precedent were set, whichever
way it falls, it would amount to a relevant innovation to the market. As we
learn more about the legal aspects of this case and its implications for the
market, we will continue to share those thoughts. None of this claims to be
a rigorous legal opinion, but a recap of what has been discussed
these past few days. In terms of the implications for Bodens, if Judge
Griesa decides to rectify the pari passu interpretation that Belgian courts
had, then the risks of attachment by February fall significantly. Moreover,
it seems that Griesa established that if plaintiffs were to try to use their
judgments to try to attach funds in other jurisdictions, they would have to
let the New York court know 30 days in advance. This has two potential
implications: 1) it could let people verify during the first week of January
whether the Boden '12 flow will be liable to an attempt; 2) it might show
judge Griesa is uncomfortable with other courts interpreting legal
principles from the New York legislation.

diese meldung habe ich von einem guten freund am mo den 22.12.03 erhalten (vielen dank w.)

sie hat mich auf das papier von buchheit/pam (pari passu // area 51, roswell) aufmerksam gemacht.

einschätzung und kommentierung zu pari passu / elliott-brüssel und lnc-brüssel folgt später sowie die implikationen für ffm/clearstream/lg 21. kammer und unsere vollstreckungstrategie


steckt die fed of n.y. hinter dem amicus curiae (6. feb boden 12)

Abgeschickt von rolf (analyse) (eng) am 15 Januar, 2004 um 03:36:42

denkt daran am oder um den 6.2.2004 ist halbjahreszinszahlungstag für den boden 12 usd-bond (arg-recht)

CORRECTED-NY Fed backs Argentina against investor injunction
Wed January 14, 2004 07:42 PM ET

In NEW YORK story headlined "NY Fed backs Argentina against investor injunction," please read in 2nd paragraph "The New York Fed said such an investor injunction, if brought by a group of holders ... ," instead of "The New York Fed said the investor injunction, brought by a group of holders ..." (corrects to clarify that the injunction had not been filed by the group of bondholders).
A corrected version follows.

NEW YORK, Jan 14 (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve Bank of New York on Wednesday said it filed court papers backing Argentina's move to bar a group of jilted bondholders from preventing the country from paying other creditors, saying it could "impact financial stability."

The New York Fed said such an investor injunction, if brought by a group of holders of defaulted Argentine debt, could disrupt the bank's payments systems, including the multibillion-dollar "Fedwire" system of international payments and settlements.

"The availability of such injunctions would create uncertainty as to the finality of payments and settlements generally," the Fed said in a "friend of the court" briefing filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

"The uncertainty would, in turn, threaten the speed, efficiency, reliability and cost of payment and settlement systems and could seriously impact financial stability," said the Fed.

The court is hearing a case brought by investors seeking compensation for their Argentina bonds. Argentina defaulted on over $88 billion of debt in late 2001, the largest sovereign debt default in history. The country has said it would pay investors only 25 cents on the dollar.


ausgesprochen interessante entscheidung steht heute in ny an

Abgeschickt von rolf (analyse) (eng) am 15 Januar, 2004 um 12:24:06

UPDATE 1-US weighs into court dispute over Argentina debt
Wed January 14, 2004 10:52 PM ET

(Recasts throughout)
NEW YORK, Jan 14 (Reuters) - The United States has weighed into a court dispute between Argentina and a group of its jilted bondholders, fearing any repeat of a "novel" decision by Belgian courts in a similar case could threaten financial markets.

Argentina is in voluntary talks with bondholders over $88 billion of debt on which it defaulted in late 2001 in the largest sovereign debt default in history. The country has said it would pay investors only 25 cents on the dollar.

A handful of disgruntled bondholders are meanwhile attempting, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to seize some of the country's assets.

The U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York both filed papers to the court backing Argentina's motion to bar any bondholders from preventing the country from paying other creditors.

In 2000 a creditor filed a motion in a Belgian court to halt payments on restructured Peruvian bonds. As a result of the Belgian ruling, the Peruvian government was ultimately forced to pay nearly all of that creditor's debt or risk default, the Treasury said.

The New York Fed said in a letter to the court obtained by Reuters that the Belgian decision on Peru and a similar Belgian ruling on a Nicaraguan sovereign debt case "pose serious risks to payments systems throughout the world."

The New York Fed asked federal judge Thomas Griesa, who will hold a hearing on the case on Thursday, to consider those risks.

It said such a decision in Argentina's case could disrupt payments systems, including the multibillion-dollar "Fedwire" system of international payments and settlements.

"The availability of such injunctions would create uncertainty as to the finality of payments and settlements generally," the Fed said in a "friend of the court" briefing.

The Treasury said that allowing a small group of creditors to use what it called the "novel" Belgian court decision could make voluntary debt restructuring impossible and threaten Argentina's repayments to the International Monetary Fund.

Argentina has a $12.55 billion loan with the IMF aimed at helping the country recover from a crippling financial crisis.

A lawyer representing one group of bondholders said no creditors had yet asked for the Belgian decision to be taken into account in the New York court case.

"Nobody's asked for it and no one's attempted to ask for it," said Dennis Hranitzky, a lawyer for EM Ltd, a Cayman Islands-based company that holds $724.8 million in defaulted Argentine paper.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.