On February 18, both Argentina and the Exchange Bondholders Group filed petitions for writs of certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking review of the Second Circuit’s rulings in the pari passu litigation. We discuss below the certiorari procedure, followed by comments on substantive arguments raised by Argentina and the Exchange Bondholders.

Don’t Cry for Me Argentine Bondholders: Argentina and
Exchange Bondholders File Certiorari Petitions

On February 18, both Argentina and the Exchange Bondholders Group filed 
petitions for writs of certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking review of 
the Second Circuit’s rulings in the pari passu litigation. We discuss below 
the certiorari procedure, followed by comments on substantive arguments 
raised by Argentina and the Exchange Bondholders. 

Our many prior comments on Argentina’s pari passu litigation, as well as all of the material
pleadings and decisions (including the two February 18 certiorari petitions), can be found on
our Argentine Sovereign Debt webpage, at
http://www.shearman.com/argentine-sovereign-debt.
Certiorari and the Procedural Schedule
A petition for a writ of certiorari is the means by which a party asks the Supreme Court to
exercise its discretionary appellate function. The Supreme Court’s Rules (at Rule 10) clearly
set forth the standards that the Court applies in considering whether to grant cert:
Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition
for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following,
although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the
character of the reasons the Court considers:
a. a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of
another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; … or has so far
departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned
such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory
power;
b. …
c. …a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law
that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important
federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.

http://www.shearman.com/~/media/Files/NewsInsights/Publications/2014/02/DontCryforMeArgentineBondholdersArgentinaandExchangeBondholdersFileCertPetitionsLT022514.pdf