RE: Media article , Peterson Case, Argentina News27 Jun 2020 20:17
Courtesy of Bestace from over on the Blue board . another good reason to delay !
Burford's filing: Https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.440752/gov.uscourts.nysd.440752.164.0.pdf Argentina's filing: Https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.440752/gov.uscourts.nysd.440752.165.0.pdf It is not in dispute that the New York court will have to apply Argentine law to this case. Reading the Argentine submission, they are not looking to rehash the FNC motion, rather they are arguing that regardless of the forum, under Argentine law the plaintiffs may lack standing to bring a claim, and that issue should be resolved before the merits of the plaintiffs' case is considered. Argentina have put forward these arguments before, indeed the arguments they advanced yesterday are remarkably similar to those which they advanced 12 months ago in docket nos. 91 and 100, for example. Despite what Petersen's lawyers are claiming ("the Court has already considered carefully and ruled on [these motions] decisively"), as far as I can see the court has not previously considered these arguments in detail, whether as part of the FNC motions or the earlier FSIA arguments. Indeed Judge Preska declared that all those other proceedings "shall be held in abeyance pending the resolution of the FNC Motions" (docket no. 106). Notwithstanding the above, Petersen's lawyers sum up the Argentine strategy rather succinctly: "The reality is that Argentina approaches its numerous foreign litigation encounters in a very clear-eyed and consistent way: it seeks to arbitrage lower pre-judgment interest rates against its own higher cost of borrowing. This is not unique to this case; it is a recurring pattern of conduct, and it makes sense, because the yields on Argentine debt are much higher than New York’s prejudgment interest rate. It is worth literally hundreds of millions of dollars to Argentina to slow walk this case."
Sign In
Follow the stocks
