The impact of Argentina's prolonged dispute with the holdouts of its defaulted debt continues to reverberate in the context of foreign sovereign debt restructuring. What has been called the "trial of the century" because of its potential impact on sovereign debt issuances — a clash between the U.S. courts and a foreign sovereign — began in 2001 with Argentina's default.

For the benefit of our clients and friends investing in European distressed opportunities, our European Network is sharing some current developments.

Recent Developments

The long-running dispute over the payment of Argentina's sovereign debt, on which the South American nation defaulted for the second time in July 2014, continues to be particularly active.

The long-running dispute over the payment of Argentina’s sovereign debt, on which the South American nation defaulted for the second time in July 2014, continues to be particularly active.

Recent Developments

Greece

On August 31, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favour of Argentina’s Central Bank in one of the many proceedings initiated by Argentina’s unpaid bondholders.[1] The decision in EM Ltd. and NML Capital Ltd v.

NML Capital Ltd. (NML), a hedge fund affiliated with Paul Singer’s Elliott Management Corp. (Elliott), won two favorable rulings from the Supreme Court of the United States (the Court) on Monday, June 16, related to its, now, decade long litigation with the Republic of Argentina over the country’s 2001 default on $100 billion of its debt. The Argentinian bonds were restructured in 2005 and again in 2010, and most bondholders swapped their defaulted bonds out for new, less favorable securities.

Gupta’s $13.9 Million SEC Insider Trading Penalty Affirmed

In Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. and others v Argentine Republic, an ICSID tribunal held that it had general jurisdiction over a multi-party claim commenced by 90 distinct Italian nationals against Argentina in respect of harm said to result from Argentina’s default and later partial restructuring of its sovereign debt. It might at first blush appear that the tribunal’s willingness to admit a 90-party claim is an affirmation of the favourable approach to so-called “mass claims” taken by its “sister tribunal” in Abaclat (and others) v The Argentine Republic.