From the Orders of the Supreme Court on October 7:
This is a defeat for Argentina. Any legal setback is. But it’s also perhaps not the end of the prospect (however distant) of Justices Scalia, Ginsburg et al debating the pari passu saga.
Argentina actually filed the petition that’s just been rejected all the way back in June. This followed a set timetable after the Second Circuit’s rejection (in March) of a bid to rehear its October ruling that Argentina violated the pari passu clause in defaulted debt, deserved the order of ratable payment to holdouts coming its way, and everything else we’ve covered in around 47 posts since then. (Oh my. Forty-seven.)
But the Second Circuit then made another ruling, this time after challenges to the form of ratable payment that Argentina should have to make, which is a kind of different question. That still ended up in another kicking for the Republic. But it might also give it grounds to request Supreme Court attention a second time, because this second ruling is already going through the whole rehearing cycle.
The Second Circuit already harrumphed in its August ruling about having to make a “timely petition” to the higher court, and how Argentina’s lawyers went off to Washington DC “notwithstanding that, as of that date, no final order had yet issued in this case”.
Why does this all matter? Time, and Argentina’s need to buy it — if it’s planning either a restructuring of debt to neuter ratable payment, or if it wants to settle with its holdouts eventually.
In that case, actually the more interesting pari passu gobbet at the moment remains Judge Griesa’s far-from-dry order for Argentina to tell him about any communications about a bond swap which might try to neuter ratable payment.
Of course, the Supreme Court went and rejected this petition, rather than (say) deferring a decision until the second cert was processed.
But we shall leave the Supreme Court-ology there…
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen