Argentina appeals U.S. court order to pay holdout bond investors

BUENOS AIRES/NEW YORK Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:05am EST

Related Topics

BUENOS AIRES/NEW YORK (Reuters) - Argentina on Monday appealed a U.S. court order to pay $1.3 billion to investors who rejected two debt restructurings tied to its 2002 sovereign debt crisis, amid fears that the country faces another default.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa last week ordered Argentina to deposit the money before December 15 to pay the "holdout" creditors, a move that could jeopardize payments to bondholders who participated in the 2005 and 2010 debt swaps.

Argentina's economy ministry said late on Monday it had filed an appeal and denounced Griesa's ruling as "an attack on sovereignty that shows ignorance of the laws passed by our Congress."

Any change to the terms of Argentine sovereign bonds must be approved by the country's Congress.

The ministry said that if Griesa arranged a formula offering

holdouts the same terms presented in the 2010 restructuring, Argentina's Congress could debate it.

That proposal is unlikely to persuade the holdouts, however.

Earlier on Monday, investors holding $1 billion worth of restructured Argentine debt filed an emergency motion in a U.S. federal appeals court to fight the ruling, which they fear could prevent payment on their bonds and lead to a fresh default.

About 93 percent of bondholders agreed to swap defaulted debt from the 2002 default for new paper at a steep discount.

But holdouts, led by Elliott Management Corp's NML Capital Ltd and Aurelius Capital Management, rejected the swaps and are fighting for full repayment in the courts.

Griesa's order dismayed investors who took part in the two debt swaps and fear the G20 country will now enter into "technical default" on about $24 billion in restructured debt.

It was those holders who filed the motion on Monday in the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to halt Griesa's order.

The motion would ensure that interest payments to the bondholders continue while the appeal is decided," said David Boies, a lawyer representing the investors. "Exchange bondholders agreed to take under 30 cents on the dollar to support Argentina's debt restructuring."

Argentina's motion was filed to the same appeals court.

Aside from sparking howls from investors who participated in the debt restructurings, Griesa's ruling was a setback for Argentina's combative, left-leaning President Cristina Fernandez, who calls the holdout funds "vultures" and has vowed never to pay them.

Fernandez's decision to vilify holdout creditors, who are loathed by most Argentines, makes payment a difficult prospect, and a local law prohibits offering a better deal than that given in the swaps. Doing so might expose Argentina to lawsuits from creditors who tendered their paper.

On the other hand, another default, albeit a technical default, would tarnish Fernandez's record on managing the economy, deepen Argentina's isolation from global financial markets and hit investment at a time of sluggish growth.

Some analysts fear the case's implications could stretch far beyond Argentina and its creditors, hampering future debt restructurings and the operation of global payment systems.

The Argentine government is due to pay exchange bondholders at least $3.3 billion in principal and interest in December.

But if Griesa's demand for payment of the $1.3 billion into an escrow account for holdouts is upheld by an appeals court and Argentina still refuses to pay, U.S. courts could embargo payments to the creditors who accepted the debt restructurings.

That would push Argentina into a technical default.

LONG BATTLE

NML has more outstanding court judgments against Argentina that are not included in this case but it is willing to negotiate and would still consider a combination of cash and bonds to settle the dispute, a source familiar with its position said on condition of anonymity.

As part of the long legal battle, NML won a court order in early October to seize an Argentine naval vessel during a visit to Ghana, and the ship remains stranded.

The hedge fund denies Argentine accusations that it wants to trigger a default to get a windfall on its holdings of credit default swaps, derivatives used to insure against default.

"That would take a huge position in the CDS market to achieve and I don't think they have an interest in doing that," the source said, adding that NML would receive about half the amount that Griesa wants paid.

Negotiations or voluntary payment by Fernandez's government appear almost impossible. Economy Minister Hernan Lorenzino called Griesa's ruling "a kind of judicial colonialism".

Argentina's appeal asks the court to reinstate a stay on payment to the holdouts and contests Griesa's latest ruling by arguing that it puts future debt restructurings at risk and endangers global financial institutions such as clearing houses and banks acting as payment agents.

Many specialists think it unlikely that the appeals court will reinstate the stay.

Last month, the appeals court backed the ruling by Griesa that Argentina has discriminated against holdouts. Argentina has requested a new hearing before all of the court's 13 judges.

Most analysts think the so-called en banc rehearing is also unlikely to yield a different result, though some say it might ease the impact on third-parties such as Bank of New York Mellon (BK.N), which transfers funds from the Argentine government to the bondholders, and clearing system operators.

Griesa's ruling last week means such payment intermediaries are subject to embargoes on funds destined for exchange bondholders.

"While the situation looks very difficult for Argentina and exchange bondholders right now, it remains possible that the appeals court could amend Griesa's order with regard to the application to third-party intermediaries," investment bank Credit Suisse said last week.

"If the appeals court were to take a more moderate stance than Griesa, it may also issue a new stay on the order."

That would buy Argentina some breathing space and a swift rehearing is likely given the looming December 15 deadline.

Beyond the appeals court, Argentina's last-remaining legal option in the United States would be the Supreme Court.

Some legal experts think the Supreme Court could choose to weigh in on this case because of its implications for debt restructurings at a time of global economic turbulence.

U.S. government lawyers have backed Argentina's position on pari passu, or equal treatment for all bondholders. They said that Griesa's orders "could enable a single creditor to thwart the implementation of an internationally supported restructuring plan."

However, not everyone thinks the ramifications will be that wide because most bonds issued since Argentina's default contain collective action clauses that make a restructuring deal binding on all creditors.

"The pendulum, post Argentina, has swung," said Hans Humes, president of Greylock Capital Management. The New York-based fund shunned the first debt swap, but accepted the same terms five years later in 2010.

"We used to have a discussion about what a country is able to pay and (Argentina) broke the mold and we've been forced to sit down and listen to what they want to pay. So in the current case maybe its swinging back in our favor a bit," he added.

Securing the U.S. Supreme Court's intervention before the hefty payment on Argentina's growth-linked warrants is due on December 15 appears a remote prospect.

An eventual default would deepen Argentina's economic isolation. Partly because of the legal action by the holdouts, the country has yet to return to global credit markets almost 11 years since the economic meltdown of 2001/2002.

Paying all the outstanding defaulted bonds would cost up to about $11 billion, equivalent to about a quarter of the foreign currency reserves that Argentina needs to keep servicing its debts in the absence of fresh credit.

Guillermo Nielsen, a former Argentine finance secretary who helped oversee the 2005 bond swap, said the government should deposit the $1.3 billion on time and keep litigating.

"A default on the new bonds must be avoided at all costs," he said. "The (2002) default was incredibly costly for Argentina and this situation could end up causing a new default combined with contempt of court."

(Additional reporting by Alejandro Lifschitz, Hugh Bronstein and Guido Nejamkis in Buenos Aires; Editing by Kieran Murray and Paul Simao)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
Danielmontero wrote:
“About 93 percent of bondholders agreed to swap defaulted debt from the 2002 default for new paper at a steep discount”
“Exchange bondholders agreed to take under 30 cents on the dollar to support Argentina’s debt restructuring.”e
Please
I remember some movies where a man (big and strong) put a knife in a women´s neck looking for sex
It was very interesting because if the women stand still it was not a rape (she agreed???)
But if she did not agree she would be killed!! (And there “yes “it was rape and almost always a murdered)
Another thing I heard was that if she was going to be raped and she begged to the rapist to use a condom “it was not a rape “she agreed.”.
Then if she fights….YES it was a rape!!But maybe become pregnant or get a mortal disease …???
Luckily in this case the law change for good! So a knife in the neck is not an “agreed”
With the bondholders is the same, we don´t have a chance, is not a agreed, the holders “sell “but they did not agreed Governments are putting a gun in our chest. In my case (Ecuador bondholder) they make laws to not pay(“a local law prohibits offering a better deal than that given in the swaps”(an Argentine law ,out of the indenture, out New York Laws after the default…incredible!),they said that the bonds are illegal, they threaten us to change the indenture if we don’t sell our bonds to Ecuador ,President Correa said he was going to denounce the bondholder of the bonds who don´t sell to Ecuador!
I am sick, without medical assistance, feeding poorly, in the last years. So how many persons had “sell “in this conditions”.So we can´t said that 93% of the holders “agreed “to sell at 30%
That was a steal!!!
I could not even make a denunciation! I don´t know how..
I send 4 e mail to the USA embassy of Brasil and 4 to the USA consulate of Rio de Janeiro asking how can I do a denunciation against President Correa or Ecuador. They not even answer (they send an automatic-reply that said I would receive an answer in 2 days (it has been more than month and nothing,)
Also I send a denunciation to the Stock Exchange (the same no answer)
I was in contact with more than 10 lawyers and anyone is interest in my case
Next the Story of a bondholder
I sell all my things in Uruguay and bought Ecuador Global Bonds 2012 and 2030,to came to live in Rio de Janeiro Brasil (I bought this Bonds before the default 2007 and 2008 at more than 100% of the price)
It happen that in 2008 Correa (President of Ecuador )said that this bond were illegal, immoral, illegitimate and he was not going to pay anything.
Correa also threatened to start me a trial If I dont sell my bonds to Ecuador!
Amazingly afterwards he said,that he was going to bought that Bonds at 30% of the price,because the total was not illegal (in my opinión this was a manipulation of de market)
I consider that if they are illegal not to pay them, but if they are legal to pay all agreed(and if Ecuador bought he legalized the Ecuador Bonds). That is why I did not “sold” at 30% of its value
Until today, Ecuador has stopped paying or making any comments.
So he stole my money
I don t have my money to work in my import company, and as I dont speak a good Portugues ,I am working as an “extra “in the television (U$ 30 per 12h paid at 60 days)
I am a seek person how needs monthly exames of blood,but as I dont have mony I have been 4 years with out a blood exame.
I didnt make a prostate exame etc etc I cant pay a health plan
I am lucky to be alive (Us 30 per 12h paired at 60 days )..
If I were dead by blood problems or other disease Ecuador would be guilty. So I thought maybe one of those Argentine or Italian outhoulder who died (as lawyer Anthony Costantini told) could have been killed by Argentine!
I would love to have another son (I have only one( 2 years,) and she would be alone soon, I am 50 year old and my wife is 40
I tray to denounce Ecuador, I contact the embassy but until today they didn’t answer me (I send 4 e mails)
The same happend with the NY Stock Exchange No answer
I am traying to Litigate but Lawyers are not interest because I have only 475 000 U$$ (nominal bonds)(I contact 10 lawyers)
I can t pay a lawyer
Then..What can do bondholder?
Sell or die
So please dear reporters do not say that 93% has agreed!!
In my opinion this governments are not volture they are ASSASSINS!
Do not forget that both countries (Argentine and Ecuador) pay until the last cent to the FMI 100% so why they pay only 30% to the holders?
Very happy than in the USA the law is the law
And judges are honest an brave

Nov 27, 2012 8:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

A tourist takes a plunge as she swims at Ngapali Beach, a popular tourist site, in the Thandwe township of the Rakhine state, October 6, 2013. Picture taken October 6, 2013. REUTERS/Soe Zeya Tun (MYANMAR - Tags: SOCIETY) - RTR3FOI0

Where do you want to go?

We look at when to take trips, budget considerations and the popularity of multigenerational family travel.   Video