das ist die Grundlage für Argentiniens Kopfschmerzen in den USA //// aus dem Fiscal Agency Agreement (October 19,1994)
31a
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina,
Case No, l;GS^cv-06978-TPG
Dkt Entry 284, Declaration of Eric C. Kirsch (January 20, 2011)
EXHIBIT B [excerpt]
Fiscal Agency Agreement
(October 19,1994)
To the extent that the Republic or any of its revenues, assets or properties shall be entitled, in any jurisdiction in which any Specified Court is located, in which any Related Proceeding may at any time be brought against it or any of its revenues, assets or properties, or in any jurisdiction in which any Specified Court or Other Court is located in which any suit, action or proceeding may at any time be brought solely for the purpose of enforcing or executing any Related Judgment, to any immunity from suit, from the jurisdiction of any such court, from setoff, from attachment prior to judgment, form attachment in aid of execution of judgment, from execution of a judgment or from any other legal or judicial process or remedy, and to the extent that in any such jurisdiction there shall be attributed such an immunity, the Republic has irrevocably agreed not to claim and has irrevocably waived such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by the laws of such jurisdiction (and consents generally for the purposes of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to the giving of any relief or the issue of any process in connection with any Related Proceeding or Related Judgment), provided that such waiver shall not be effective (i) with respect to the assets which constitute freely
32a
available reserves pursuant to Article 6 of the Convertibility Law (the “Convertibility Law”), the amount, composition and investment of which will be reflected on the balance sheet and accounting statement of Banco Central consistently prepared pursuant to Article 5 of the Convertibility Law and (ii) with respect to property of the public domain located in the territory of The Republic of Argentina or property owned by the Republic and located in its territory which is dedicated to the purpose of an essential public service, and provided further that such agreement and waiver, insofar as it relates to any jurisdiction other than a jurisdiction in which a Specified Court is located, is given solely for the purpose of enabling the Fiscal Agent or a holder of Securities of this Series to enforce or execute a Related Judgment. The waiver of immunities referred to herein constitutes only a limited and specific waiver for the purpose of the Securities of this Series and the Fiscal Agency Agreement and under no circumstances shall it be interpreted as a general waiver of the Republic or a waiver with respect to proceedings unrelated to the Securities of this Series or the Fiscal Agency Agreement.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina,
Case No, l;GS^cv-06978-TPG
Dkt Entry 284, Declaration of Eric C. Kirsch (January 20, 2011)
EXHIBIT B [excerpt]
Fiscal Agency Agreement
(October 19,1994)
To the extent that the Republic or any of its revenues, assets or properties shall be entitled, in any jurisdiction in which any Specified Court is located, in which any Related Proceeding may at any time be brought against it or any of its revenues, assets or properties, or in any jurisdiction in which any Specified Court or Other Court is located in which any suit, action or proceeding may at any time be brought solely for the purpose of enforcing or executing any Related Judgment, to any immunity from suit, from the jurisdiction of any such court, from setoff, from attachment prior to judgment, form attachment in aid of execution of judgment, from execution of a judgment or from any other legal or judicial process or remedy, and to the extent that in any such jurisdiction there shall be attributed such an immunity, the Republic has irrevocably agreed not to claim and has irrevocably waived such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by the laws of such jurisdiction (and consents generally for the purposes of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to the giving of any relief or the issue of any process in connection with any Related Proceeding or Related Judgment), provided that such waiver shall not be effective (i) with respect to the assets which constitute freely
32a
available reserves pursuant to Article 6 of the Convertibility Law (the “Convertibility Law”), the amount, composition and investment of which will be reflected on the balance sheet and accounting statement of Banco Central consistently prepared pursuant to Article 5 of the Convertibility Law and (ii) with respect to property of the public domain located in the territory of The Republic of Argentina or property owned by the Republic and located in its territory which is dedicated to the purpose of an essential public service, and provided further that such agreement and waiver, insofar as it relates to any jurisdiction other than a jurisdiction in which a Specified Court is located, is given solely for the purpose of enabling the Fiscal Agent or a holder of Securities of this Series to enforce or execute a Related Judgment. The waiver of immunities referred to herein constitutes only a limited and specific waiver for the purpose of the Securities of this Series and the Fiscal Agency Agreement and under no circumstances shall it be interpreted as a general waiver of the Republic or a waiver with respect to proceedings unrelated to the Securities of this Series or the Fiscal Agency Agreement.
1) If by some act intermediary banks are in fact forced to follow the injunction, forcing Argentina to make a pro-rata payment to holdouts in order to continue servicing their performing debt, doesn't this mean that it constitutes an event of default on the currently performing debt? If memory serves me correctly, the exchange bond prospectus says that Argentina is not allowed to give holdouts a better offer than what it initially offered everybody. Does this matter at all to the courts?
2. What would the timing look like for an injunction to be enforced, assuming that the Second District affirms whatever Griesa comes back with? This case has dragged on for a while but I wonder if we might see an unravelling within the next year or so.