BARRINGTON D.PARKER,Circuit Judge:
3 This is a contract case in which the Republic of Argentina refuses to pay certain holders
4 of sovereign bonds issued under a 1994 Fiscal Agency Agreement (hereinafter, the “FAA” and
5 the “FAA Bonds”). In order to enhance the marketability of the bonds, Argentina made a series
6 of promises to the purchasers. Argentina promised periodic interest payments. Argentina
7 promised that the bonds would be governed by New York law. Argentina promised that, in the
8 event of default, unpaid interest and principal would become due in full. Argentina promised
9 that any disputes concerning the bonds could be adjudicated in the courts of New York.
10 Argentina promised that each bond would be transferrable and payable to the transferee,
11 regardless of whether it was a university endowment, a so-called “vulture fund,” or a widow or
12 an orphan. Finally, Argentina promised to treat the FAA Bonds at least equally with its other
13 external indebtedness. As we have held, by defaulting on the Bonds, enacting legislation
14 specifically forbidding future payment on them, and continuing to pay interest on subsequently
15 issued debt, Argentina breached its promise of equal treatment. See NML Capital, Ltd. v.
16 Republic of Argentina, 699 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2012) (NML I).
17 Specifically, in October 2012, we affirmed injunctions issued by the district court
18 intended to remedy Argentina’s breach of the equal treatment obligation in the FAA. See id.
19 Our opinion chronicled pertinent aspects of Argentina’s fiscal history and the factual background
of this case, see id. at 251-57, familiarity with which is assumed.1
20 Those injunctions, fashioned
1
For a more comprehensive narrative of Argentina’s long history of defaulting on i
http://www.shearman.com/files/upload/NML_Second_Circuit_Decision.pdf
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen