Gesamtzahl der Seitenaufrufe

Samstag, 31. März 2012

Investors vs. Greece: The Greek 'Haircut' and Investor Arbitration Under BIT's // das könnte sehr wichtig sein...runterladen....lesen...kommentieren

Investors vs. Greece: The Greek 'Haircut' and Investor Arbitration Under BIT's


Ioannis Glinavos


University of Reading


March 13, 2012

Abstract:
According to the Financial Times (James Wilson & Gerrit Wiesmann 12.3.2012) German investors were seeking lawsuits over the Greek debt swap, immediately after it was set in motion in March 2012. According to reports, a German law firm was preparing lawsuits against banks and the Greek state on behalf of holders of Greek bonds who have been forced to take part in Greece’s €206bn debt swap. The Hamburg law firm claimed that there were some 200 expressions of interest in joining a class-action suit. This development follows the decision by Greece to trigger Collective Action Clauses (CAC) that were added to bonds issued under Greek law. The clauses force all bondholders to go along with the decision by the majority of the debt’s owners – including banks, insurers and pension funds – to agree to the swap. The possibility of legal action over imposed 'haircuts' to sovereign debt is seen by many as an alternative strategy for seeking compensation instead of relying on payments from Credit Default Swaps. A legal precedent is offered by Argentina which defaulted on its sovereign debt in December 2001, prompting over 180,000 Italian bondholders to file a class action, known as Abaclat v Argentina, claiming a violation of their rights under a bilateral investment treaty. This paper discusses options in the courts and international investment arbitration for investors who have suffered losses on the Greek restructuring of March 2012. The paper considers the precedents available under bilateral investment treaties (especially the Germany-Greece BIT of 1961), European Law (including the ECHR) and the Greek courts. The paper concludes by offering an assessment of the chances of success of claims under each of the above headings.

[Please note that this is an early draft of this paper - contact the author for updates and permission to quote]

Number of Pages in PDF File: 17
Keywords: Greece, Germany, Investors, Arbitration, BIT, haircut, sovereign debt, investor protection, Collective Action Clause
JEL Classifications: A12, P26, P48
Working Paper Series

Date posted: March 14, 2012 ; Last revised: March 29, 2012


Danke an R.A. für den Hinweis (R.A. heisst nicht Rechtsanwalt sondern sind Initialen

Kommentare:

  1. "Article 11 provides for dispute resolution processes, requiring that disagreements not resolved via mediation are referred to binding arbitration. The process of appointing the tribunal is specified in the Treaty, but as both Greece and Germany signed on to ICSID in 1966, the relevant tribunal would now be the ICSID centre." Seite 11
    Damit sind dann die für uns vorteilhaften Klauseln hinfällig, das ICSID will ja eigentlich keiner anrufen.
    Aktuell verscueh ich aus diesem Aufsatz: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1260897 "UMBRELLA CLAUSES IN BILATERAL INVESTMENT
    TREATIES: OF BREACHES OF CONTRACT, TREATY
    VIOLATIONS, AND THE DIVIDE BETWEEN
    DEVELOPING AND DEVELOPED COUNTRIES IN
    FOREIGN INVESTMENT DISPUTES" irgendwie herauszu finden, ob der Gerichtsstand nach Deutschland zu bekommen wäre, aber eindeutig ist das alles nicht.

    AntwortenLöschen
  2. Da hilft wohl nur noch Sammelklage.
    Obwohl DE, wegen der Unmöglichkeit einzelner Kleinanlergerklagen vorm ICSID, eigentlich nicht dorthin verweisen kann!
    Die wäre Verfassungswidrig.
    Oder will Schäuble uns Prozesskostenhilfe anbieten?

    AntwortenLöschen