A Stay Would Not Affect the Plaintiffs... Except by Eviscerating the Injunction
Unless the plaintiffs request a stay (and quick!), this will probably be the last request for Judge Griesa to stay the injunction before Argentina defaults officially fails to put money into the bank accounts of exchange bondholders. It is an emergency motion to stay filed by Knighthead Capital Management and other holders of euro-denominated bonds. They want the judge to stay the injunction for at least 90 days, so that they can try to round up votes to waive the RUFO clause, or through the end of the year, when the RUFO clause expires. They add that "a stay would not affect the plaintiffs at all, since they have not been paid since 2001..."
I do worry that, when all of this is over, I will have lost my ability to detect humor. A stay would only remove all of the leverage plaintiffs have spent over a decade obtaining. Sure, the judge can reinstate the injunction. But, having blinked once, Judge Griesa will have lost credibility and Argentina's incentives to negotiate will be reduced even further. That's a problem, when the whole point of the injunction is to present Argentina with a credible threat of default. Anyway, so far as I can tell, the facts on which the motion is premised have been known for some time, and the judge just denied Argentina's request for a stay, so I'm not holding my breath for this to be granted.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen