http://www.elmundo.es/america/2012/12/23/estados_unidos/1356272159.html

saqueo = sacking or looting.

The Spanish media are reported this with a big anti Argentine government bias showing images from one looting with large flatscreen TVs and other luxury electrical goods being robbed. Sour grapes over YPF I think!

You are very welcome.

Believe me David, your point gets across very well and I have no trouble reading, and nor does it bother me that there may be typos in, any of your pieces. I am a regular at NakedCapitalism and Yves also has proofreading issues. My only concern with typos is that I wouldn’t want anyone who is not already “in your camp” as it were to disregard your points due to typos. I am of the opinion that those who would ignore content due to minor typos is generally a pedantic sort of nob and perhaps not worth the bother. But in any event, you are welcome and the offer still stands if you ever require such services.

Oh, and I do certainly believe you that typos remain even after several readings. That is the nature of editing and rewriting as I’m sure you know. Anyway, great post and I look forward to your further work.

I think they were secretly buying up their own bonds in the secondary market at about 30 cents on the dollar at the same time.

Good times.

Yes, you are absolutely correct it was Ecuador and Correa who used declared many of their debts Odious Debt and refused to pay. They used the concept succesfully.

So, ‘test case’ might not be exactly the right phrase, but I think the decision’s only ‘enshrined’ in law and precedent until all appeals are exhausted/or higher decisions returned.

A district court/judge in Manhattan is pretty low in the legal hierarchy, I think, so it’s possible that the reinstatement of PP might just turn out to be a temporary blip brought about by a numbnuts judge with vested interests. But, then again, if it’s already been passed back once, maybe not so much…..Again, it’ll be interesting to see how it pans out!  

(It’s always a bit of a gamble when you’re left relying on the US legal system to do the right thing, especially when there’s a shitload of money, and/or business interests involved, so I pro’ly won’t be holding my breath. 

But, having said that, and perhaps a reason for cautious optimism, is the fact that I think there’ll be also be a fair few companies who won’t want stuff like this to stand, precisely because it opens up a whole can of worms for their own dealings with particular countries…….

Maybe they’ll all just spend the next 10 years or so ripping big chunks out of each other, which, at the very least, would be quite good fun to watch!.)

I think the Manhatten decision will prove a Pyrrhic victory for Eliot. Were it to be applied the USofA would have to petition for a Section 11 against the counter claims of half the South American nations about the same amount of developing nations around the world.

Invert the argument – if America apples this as a legal maxim, it must use the same maxim in its actions and dealings with other nations. It would open the flood-gate on compensatory claims on all of Washington’s acts and ommision’s, from the black ops of the CIA and the Administration through to the hegemony cabals of its global corporates and could cover a time scale from Vietnam through Iraq and beyond.

I think Elliot may have pulled this off if it had used Senegal as the sacrificial goat, but Argentina having found its democratic spirit has developed a backbone and as a result it could well be Elliot’s who find themselves squirming on the altar of expediency.

Am I right in thinking that Ecuador used the Odious Debt principal when Rafael Correa came to power?

“So, even though the citizens of many Latin American countries suffered untold atrocities, even though they fought (long and hard) to re-establish democracy and civil rights, they’re still effectively suffering for the decisions and deals made by the Dictatorships who most certainly didn’t ‘speak for them’, and who, sure as shit, had little in the way of democratic legitimacy!!”

Well said James Dixon. In particular, this is also true in the case of Chile where the effectively unchangeable constitution left by Pinochet has, since the return to democracy, blocked many changes that have been demanded by the large majority of the population. I’m writing a reply on this to Roanman’s comment

https://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2012/11/argentina-and-america-of-vulture-funds-and-justice/#comment-23442

yesterday regarding Chile’s situation. It’s taken me quite long to write and I don’t have much time now, I hope I’ll be able to make it tonight.

Cheers