DOCSLIB.ORG

Sovereign Piracy G. Mitu Gulati and Kenneth N. Klee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sovereign Piracy G. Mitu Gulati and Kenneth N. Klee ,w^: ~_~ INTERNATIONAL INSOLVENCY INSTITUTE Sovereign Piracy G. Mitu Gulati and Kenneth N. Klee From The Kenneth N. Klee Collection in The International Insolvency Institute Academic Forum Collection http://www.iiiglobal.org/component/jdozunloads/viezucategori~/650.11tn~il International Insolvency Institute PMB 112 10332 Main Street Fairfax, Virginia 22030-2410 USA Email: [email protected] OO International Insolvency Institute 2011. All rights reserved. Admin`1584723.1 ~, y ~ ~~ ~ __. ~- ~s ~ x~ yr y , . `~ >(^ter£.'"~Y, -:S. ~E ~-rr er ';~ N. r _X ___—_._'_ ~_ :i,....3 s_:.,,,^ ~¢~i t +~ s '~---4 ?F ~ -`o~'a S'~ 5;?~~ ~ i f,,~: ~ '~'kae ~~ercY~~~~e~ Coy°~~rsc~.t~ F'i~~~ace ~x~~X~rrtt~~x~ ~ Lr~cima l~r~~e I3e1~L~lzirk <c~~d Daz~r'd I. I~l~celke~~ '~"~a~ ~:~e~~n~a~,~~~fcf~r T~~~~~~~ty ~~ t~aa~ "1'~'~~~~.1 I)~.~~~~ l~o~~Y ~ ~a~a~~lo~~~ ~b~ ~~~ix~~~ff~ g~ ~~ca~ritxe~ Cla~~ Acti.o~ ~,a~r~~~~~ I~ ~ Robe~~t rl. Alessi E Irn~nt~d ~~~l~u~a9.~ C~~pa~ne~ Aga the ~~cade o~th~ 19~~~e € ' I,e~~.~l~~:~~e ~~~ C~.~~ I,~.v~ ~e~e~og~~a~n~~ ~aaei '~'~aei~~ G'harles I~V. illac~~doc~, ~ i t~ ~~~~~°o~.a~~~ e~f~h~ t~l~~~.l~~~.~~~~a P~r~~e~~s T'~ne k~i~~ :~~~ .%ose 1-~h .~" ~~i~orfora a~td Clt~~isto1 Sher D. OliUe '~. -~~ Smv~~ea~a ~au•~.ey j ~'°== G. ~~Iitza C~t~lata road Bennet{t ,J1C Klee ~ ~e~axl~.~o~~ C~tt~ap~~x~~~a~ a~ ~nt~~xA~f~o~i~al ~ecuan~ae~ I$~~,8°~~~~: f , Hoze-ell E.fackson crud E7zc J Para I 4 - Q~~~xn~ '~'~~~;~~•~r ~e~s~ ~~a~tstxlz~~.~e ~. R.a:ccsm~~a~~.~y~n ~~~r ~.~f~~a~~ya~ G'larz.rtia~a ~ Flejrrich ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~n~~~x°a~~a~~ ~e~ve~x~ ~&a~ 1'~~~~~ ~~~ine~~ C~~~o~~,~~r~B~ Act ` axa~ ~~~ ~~la~a~~ ~~~~~al Car~a~~atgsasa ~.~~ar ~ tG .:' 1'lliclzael P. Dooley ~t~t~l ~Llieh~cel D. Goldnac~~~ X000 l~~I~~D~~ ~~~t~~~~ ~'I'LJI~~1~'~' ~TR~T'~I~T~ COS~1'~'~~'~' C I ~~~:~a~~,i~s~~~ ~~~a~t~,l .~.rrfl~~n~a~c~e 'I'lae ~as~~ .A.~c~~•d. ~ ~n~ ~~a~ I~T~v~ ~'x~rn~vvmrk R _ Hecatla Price Tarbert ~' ~~a~,~ k~,e~a~~w ~~'k'~~e~°~.1 ~eca~rxtae~ ~~g~a~~ta~xa r s ' ~Sicbcorrtntittee on tlae Ara~au~cl Peuieze~ ~ .__ _._ .,.___ Sovereign Piracy By G. Mitu Gulati and Kenneth N. Klee X INTRODUCTION In October X 995, Peru announced its Brady Plan debt restructuring of guaranteed Banco de la Nacion and Banco Popular del Peru bank loans.l Approximately four months later, Elliott Associates, LP (Elliott), a well- known vulture fund, purchased nearly $20.7 million face amount of loans from t~vo international banks for about $11.4 million.2 The restructuring went forward with Elliott holding out. Instead, Elliott filed suit in New York against one bank and Peru demanding full payment on the bank loans and guaranty. In June 2000, Elliott obtained a judgment against Peru for $55.7 million.3 The problem for Elliott, however, was the standard problem that arises ~vhen a creditor sues a sovereign. Often, especially if the state is the debtor, there is little in the way of assets that can be attached.4 Elliott's lawyers, however, came up with a creative solution. They intercepted and attached the payments that were about to be made to the other creditors, i.e., the ones who had agreed to the Brady Plan debt restructuring. * Mr. Gulati is an Acting Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. Mr. Klee is air. Acti~~g Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law and Partner at Klee, Tuchi~z, Bogdanoff &Stern LLP. The views in this Article do not necessarily represent those of Professor Klee's law firm or any client. I. Elliott Assocs., L.P. v Banco de Ia Nacion, 194 Fad 363, 36G (2d Cir. 1999}. 2. See id. at 366-67; see also Joshua Chaffin, I~aaestor "Ijultures" G`ome Unde~~ Sc~~uEi~ay, Flzv. Ttrvt~s, Oct. 25, 2000, at 19. 3. See Elliott Assocs., L.P. v Banco de la Nacion, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14169, ae *2 (S.DN.Y. Sept. 29, 2000). For descriptions of these recent events involving Elliott and Peru, see ERIC LINDENBAUIvt & ALTCTA DURAN, MERRILL LYNCH & CO., DLB'I' RESTRUC- TUI2TNGS: L~sGAL CONSIDERATIONS (Oct. 30, 2000. See also GABRIELLE LIPWORTT-T & ENS NYS'I'LDT, INTERNATIONAL MONETAKY FUND, CRISIS RESOI..UTION AND PRIVA?'E SECTOR AIaAP'TA7"zON (paper presented at the First Annual IMF Research Conference, Nov. 9-10, 2000). 4. 'The reason for this is that generally oF~ly property used for the commercial activity in question inside the jurisdiction where the suit is brought may be aCtached. See, egg, 28 U.S.C. § 1610 (1994 & Supp. N 199£3). Given that most of tl~e sove~~eign's'assets relating to the borrowing are likely located within the sovereign's own boundariES, this leaves few assets for the creditors to reach. See MOODY'S INVESTOR SERV., SP~'CIAL COMMENT, HOW TO SUF A SOV[:REIGN: THE CASE OF PERU ~NOV. 2000; see aCso MQODY'S IIV'~CS'TOI2 S~RV.,SPECIAL COMMENT, SOVEREIGN DEBT: WHAT HAPPENS TF A SO~IEREIGN DEFAULTS {~uly 2000. 635 636 The Business Lawyer; X101. 56, February 2001 Elliott did two things to put this strategy into effect. rirst, it obtained a restraining order against The Chase Manhattan Bank in New York (Chase), the New York fiscal agent for the Brady bonds, after successfully arguing that the funds were still the property of Peru (Chase being the agent far the debtor),5 This tactic was thwarted temporarily because Peru got word of the order just in time to stop the transfer of funds to Chase. Elliott next sought ex pane, but did not get, an order from a Brussels Com- mercial court restraining Euroclear from either accepting money from Peru or paying it to the other ereclitors. Elliott quielcly appealed ex~iarte to the Court of Appeals of Brussels, which issued the restraining order the next day.6 By this time, Peru was getting close to defaulting on its Brady payments---the thirty-day grace period was close to ending—and it chose to settle by paying Elliott X56.3 million. Central to Elliott's victory in Brussels was its success in arguing that Peru was contractually barred from paying one group of creditors (here, the creditors who had agreed to the restructuring) before paying it the holdout). The basis for the argument was a device called the pari passu clause$—a standard clause found in almost all sovereign bond indentures.9 The clause typically states (as it did in this case) that the debtor represents and warrants that "[t]he obligations of the Guarantor here- under do rank and will rank at least pari passu in priority of payment ~cvith all other External Indebtedness of the Guarantor, and interest thereon."la Professor Andreas Lowenfeld of New York University explained Elliott's argument in a declaration to the court.l l Elliott argued that the meaning of the payi ~iassu clause was clear.12 What the clause says, according to Lowenfeld's opinion, is that if the debtor does not have enough money to pay its creditors in full,13 they all have to be paid their pro rata 5. S'ee Elliott Assocs., L.P., General Docket No. 2000/QR/92 (Court ofAppeals of Brus- sels, 8th Chamber, Sepe. 26, 2000) (unofficial translation on file with The Business Lawyer, University oFMaryland School of Law) [hereinafter Brussels Opinion]. 6. Id. 7. The settlement includes postjudgment inCerest. See Lr1vD~N13nuM & DurtAN,supra note 3, at 2. 8. "[T]he term `part ~iassu' is adopted from the Latin £or `with equal step,' or `side by side."' Carl S. Bjerre, Secu~•ed TransacCions Insede Out: Negatiae Pledge Covenants, Pro~ierty and Pe~c- tion, 84 CoRivlsLt, L. REV. 305, 309 n.6 (1999). 9. See Brussels Opinion, supra note 5. 10. See Declaration of Professor Andreas Lorvenfeld at 8, Elliott Assocs., L.P. v Banco de la Nacion, 2000 U.S. Dist. I~EXIS 19.169 (S,D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2000}; Elliott Assocs,, L.P, v. Republic of Peru, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3G8 (S.D.N.Y, Jan. lfi, 2000)(executed Aug. 31, 2000)(on file with The Business Lawyer, University of Maryland School of Law). 11. Id. 12. As noted in footnote 10, we have a copy of Professor Lowenfeld's opinion that was submitted in the New York cases. We are advised that the same memorandum was suhmitCed in the Brussels case. 13. Professor Lowenfeld limits his opinion to the context whexe there is "not enough money to go around," or the debtor is insolvent in the equity sense of inability to pay debts Sovereig~~ Piracy 6~7 shares.~~ The debtor is not allowed to pay one creditor in full and leave the others unpaid. In vivid, Tom-Dicl~-Harry terms, Lowenfeld explains: A borrower from. Tam, Dack, and Harry can't say "I will pay Tom and Dick in full, and if there is anything left over I'll pay Harry." If there is not enough money to go around, the borrower faced with a sari passu provision must pay all three of therx~ on the same basis: Suppose, for example, the total debt is $50,000 and the borrower has only $30,000 available.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lessons from the Sovereign Debt Market
    The Market Reaction to Legal Shocks and Their Antidotes: Lessons from the Sovereign Debt Market Michael Bradley, James D. Cox, and Mitu Gulati ABSTRACT In September 2000, a Brussels court ruled in favor of a hedge fund that held an unpaid debt claim against the Republic of Peru. The decision was based on a novel interpretation of the common pari passu clause. Policy makers and practitioners suggested that this decision sig- naled a paradigm shift that caused a significant increase in the risk of holdout litigation faced by sovereign debtors. Over the ensuing years, multiple reform solutions were imple- mented including the revision of certain contractual terms, the filing of amicus briefs in a key New York case, and the passage of legislation in Belgium. This article investigates whether the markets perceived an increase in risk in sovereign debt in the wake of the Brussels court decision. And, to the extent the markets reacted to the increase in legal risk, did any of the antidotes that were implemented to reduce the supposed increased holdout risk work? 1. INTRODUCTION This article examines the market reaction to a series of legal events concerning the judicial interpretation of the pari passu clause in sov- MICHAEL BRADLEY is the F.M. Kirby Professor of Law and Finance at Duke University. JAMES D. COX is the Brainerd Currie Professor of Law at Duke University. MITU GULATI is Professor of Law at Duke University. Thanks to Stephen Choi, Anna Gelpern, Lee Buch- heit, Marcel Kahan, Kim Krawiec, Tom Miles, Eric Posner, Mark Ramseyer, Barak Rich- man, Robert Scott, and workshop participants at the Institute for Law and Finance (Uni- versity of Frankfurt) for comments and conversations about this project.
    [Show full text]
  • An Experimental Study of the Holdout Problem in a Multilateral Bargaining Game John J
    Economics Faculty Publications Economics 10-2009 An Experimental Study of the Holdout Problem in a Multilateral Bargaining Game John J. Cadigan Gettysburg College Pamela Schmitt U.S. Naval Academy Robert Shupp Michigan State University See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/econfac Part of the Economics Commons Share feedback about the accessibility of this item. Cadigan, John J., Pamela Schmitt, Robert Shupp and Kurtis Swope. "An Experimental Study of the Holdout Problem in a Multilateral Bargaining Game." Southern Economic Journal 76.2 (October 2009), 444-457. This is the publisher's version of the work. This publication appears in Gettysburg College's institutional repository by permission of the copyright owner for personal use, not for redistribution. Cupola permanent link: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/econfac/10 This open access article is brought to you by The uC pola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of The uC pola. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Experimental Study of the Holdout Problem in a Multilateral Bargaining Game Abstract When an economic exchange requires agreement by multiple independent parties, the potential exists for an individual to strategically delay agreement in an attempt to capture a greater share of the surplus created by the exchange. This "holdout problem" is a common feature of the land-assembly literature because development frequently requires the assembly of multiple parcels of land. We use experimental methods to examine holdout behavior in a laboratory bargaining game that involves multi-person groups, complementary exchanges, and holdout externalities.
    [Show full text]
  • Paper: Improving the Sovereign Debt Restructuring Process
    Improving the Sovereign Debt Restructuring Process: Problems in Restructuring, Proposed Solutions, and a Roadmap for Reform Nouriel Roubini and Brad Setser Paper prepared for the conference on “Improving the Sovereign Debt Restructuring Process” co-hosted by the Institute for International Economics and Institut Français des Relations Internationales, Paris, March 9, 2003. We thank Fred Bergsten, Ted Truman, Bill Cline, Anna Gelpern, and Jean Pisani-Ferry for useful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies with force: the opinions expressed in this paper are strictly those of the authors and not of any other institution or organization. Nouriel Roubini Brad Setser Stern School of Business Council on Foreign Relations New York University [email protected] [email protected] Introduction The recent debate on reforming the international financial system has focused on the need to improve the sovereign debt restructuring process, and in particular on steps that could limit the risk that litigation could disrupt or delay a sovereign debt restructuring. This debate increasingly has focused on the debt restructuring process in those cases where debt reduction is needed to produce a sustainable debt profile. Less attention has been given to those cases where a sovereign lacks the reserves needed to cover its near-term obligations and, absent international support, has a clear need for debt rescheduling to push out near-term maturities. There is a strong case for seeking to make the sovereign debt restructuring process more orderly, more predictable, and more rapid. There is also a strong case that steps to address collective action problems created by the threat of holdout litigation could help to improve the restructuring process, and give all parties more confidence that there is path that can lead a sovereign from the decision that a restructuring is necessary to its successful conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Troubled Debt Restructurings
    Journal of Financial Economics 27 (1990) 315-353. North-Holland Troubled debt restructurings An empirical study of private reorganization of firms in default* Stuart C. Gilson The Unicersity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA Kose John and Larry H.P. Lang New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA Received November 1989, final version received May 1990 This study investigates the incentives of financially distressed firms to restructure their debt privately rather than through formal bankruptcy. In a sample of 169 financially distressed companies, about half successfully restructure their debt outside of Chapter 11. Firms more likely fo restructure their debt privately have more intangible assets, owe more of their debt to banks, and owe fewer lenders. Analysis of stock returns suggests that the market is also able to discriminate er ante between the two sets of firms, and that stockholders are systematically better off when debt is restructured privately. 1. Introduction With, the proliferation of leveraged buyouts (LBOs) and other highly leveraged transactions, there has been growing popular concern that the corporate sector is being burdened with too much debt. Much of this concern *We would like to thank Edward Altman. Yakov Amihud, Sugato Bhattacharya, Keith Brown, Robert Bruner, T. Ronald Casper, Charles D’Ambrosio, Larry Dann, Oliver Hart, Gailen Hite, Max Holmes, Scott Lee, Gershon Mandelker. Scott Mason, Robert Merton, Wayne Mikkelson, Megan Partch, Ramesh Rao, Roy Smith, Chester Spatt, Gopala Vasudevan, and Richard West for their helpful comments. We are especially grateful to Michael Jensen (the editor) and Karen Wruck (the referee) for their many detailed and thoughtful suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • Commentary the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 in Congress and the Courts in 2016: Bringing the Sec to the Table
    COMMENTARY THE TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1939 IN CONGRESS AND THE COURTS IN 2016: BRINGING THE SEC TO THE TABLE Mark J. Roe∗ Distressed firms with publicly issued bonds often seek to restructure the bonds’ payment terms to better reflect the firm’s weakened repayment capabilities and thereby avoid a bankruptcy. But Depression-era securities law bars the bondholders from agreeing via a binding out-of-bankruptcy vote to new payment terms, thus requiring individualized consent to the new payment terms, despite that such binding votes are commonplace now in bankruptcy and elsewhere. Recent judicial application of this securities law rule to bond recapitalizations has been more consistent than it had previously been, with courts striking down restructuring deals that twisted bondholders’ arms into consenting to unwanted deals. These coercive bond exchanges first became common in the 1980s, when many hostile tender offers for public companies had a similarly coercive deal structure. The coercive deal structure in these takeover offers was brought forward then to justify wide managerial countermeasures, but this structure disappeared in takeovers. However, it persisted in bond exchange offers. While these court decisions striking down the coercive bond exchanges faithfully apply Depression-era securities law to thwart issuers from twisting bondholders’ arms into exchanging, the bond market and distressed firms would be better served by exempting fair votes that bind all bondholders to new payment terms. The Securities and Exchange Commission now has authority to exempt fair restructuring votes from this now out-of-date securities law. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 361 I. THE HOLDOUT PROBLEM ................................................................................................. 363 II. THE EXIT-CONSENT PROBLEM ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vulture Funds” and the Risks Posed to Developing Economies
    Class, Race and Corporate Power Volume 2 Issue 3 Article 7 2014 The Argentine Dilemma: “Vulture Funds” and the Risks Posed to Developing Economies Mine Doyran CUNY Lehman College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower Part of the Political Economy Commons, and the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Doyran, Mine (2014) "The Argentine Dilemma: “Vulture Funds” and the Risks Posed to Developing Economies," Class, Race and Corporate Power: Vol. 2 : Iss. 3 , Article 7. DOI: 10.25148/CRCP.2.3.16092120 Available at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower/vol2/iss3/7 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts, Sciences & Education at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Class, Race and Corporate Power by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Argentine Dilemma: “Vulture Funds” and the Risks Posed to Developing Economies Abstract Post-crisis Argentina is a case study of crisis management through debt restructuring. This article examines how Argentina negotiated the external debt in the wake of the sovereign default in December 2001 and now confronts challenges posed by holdout creditors—the so called “vulture funds”. It argues that debt restructuring has put a straitjacket on the national economy, making it virtually impossible for healthy growth short of a break with the international economic order. While Argentina has successfully restructured a $95 billion debt with an unprecedented “hair cut” (around 70% reduction in “net value of debt”), a sustainable growth appears out of reach as long as reliance on the government debt market prevails.
    [Show full text]
  • Preserving Value by Restructuring Debt
    VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 4 | FALL 2012 In This Issue: Preserving Value by Restructuring Debt Seven Ways to Deal with a Financial Crisis: 8 Charles W. Calomiris, Columbia University, Cross-Country Experience and Policy Implications Daniela Klingebiel, World Bank, and Luc Laeven, International Monetary Fund Coming Through in a Crisis: How Chapter 11 and the Debt Restructuring Industry 23 Stuart Gilson, Harvard Business School Are Helping to Revive the U.S. Economy International Propagation of the Credit Crisis: 36 Richard A. Brealey, Ian A. Cooper, and Evi Kaplanis, Lessons for Bank Regulation London Business School A Proposal to Improve U.S. Housing Market Incentives: 46 Michael A. Ehrlich and Ronald Sverdlove, New Jersey Insti- A Response to the Federal Reserve White Paper of January 2012 tute of Technology, Charles F. Beauchamp, Middle Tennessee State University, Rawley Thomas, LifeCycle Returns, and Michael G. Stockman, MG Stockman Advisors LLC A Primer on Distressed Investing: 59 Stephen G. Moyer, Distressed Debt Alpha, David Martin, Buying Companies by Acquiring Their Debt Orix Corp., and John Martin, Baylor University Are Too Many Private Equity Funds Top Quartile? 77 Robert Harris, University of Virginia, Tim Jenkinson and Rüdiger Stucke, University of Oxford What Happens During the Private Period?: 90 Sudip Datta, Wayne State University, Mark Gruskin, Evidence from Public-to-Private Reverse LBOs Penn State-Lehigh Valley, and Mai Iskandar-Datta, Wayne State University The Case for Secondary Buyouts as Exit Channel 102 Ann-Kristin Achleitner, Oliver Bauer, Christian Figge, and Eva Lutz, Technische Universität München (TUM School of Management) Do Private Equity Funds Increase Firm Value? 112 Tsung-ming Yeh, Akita International University Evidence from Japanese Leveraged Buyouts CDS and the Resolution of Financial Distress 129 Stephen J.
    [Show full text]
  • Distorted Choice in Corporate Bankruptcy Abstract
    D AVID A . S KEEL, J R . Distorted Choice in Corporate Bankruptcy abstract. We ordinarily assume that a central objective of every voting process is ensuring an undistorted vote. Recent developments in corporate bankruptcy, which culminates with an elaborate vote, are quite puzzling from this perspective. Two strategies now routinely used in big cases are intended to distort, and clearly do distort, the voting process. Restructuring support agreements (RSAs) and “deathtrap” provisions remove creditors’ ability to vote for or against a proposed reorganization simply on the merits. This Article offers the first comprehensive analysis of these new distortive techniques. One possible solution is simply to ban distortive techniques, as several scholars advocate with RSAs that offer joinder bonuses. Although an antidistortion rule would be straightforward to imple- ment, I argue this would be a mistake. The distortive techniques respond to developments that have made reorganization difficult, such as claims trading and a greater need for speed. Further, Chapter 11’s baseline was never intended to be neutral: it nudges the parties toward confirming a reorganization plan. There also are independent justifications for some distortive techniques, and the alternative to using them might be even worse—possibly leading to more fire sales of debt- ors’ assets. How can legitimate use of the new distortive techniques be distinguished from more perni- cious practices? To answer this question, I outline four rules of thumb to assist the scrutiny. Courts should consider whether holdouts are a serious threat, the magnitude of the coercion, the significance of any independent justifications, and whether the holdout threat is an intentional feature of the parties’ contracts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Litigation in Sovereign Debt Restructuring
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 2004 Vultures or Vanguards?: The Role of Litigation in Sovereign Debt Restructuring Jill E. Fisch University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Caroline M. Gentile Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Banking and Finance Law Commons, Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons, Business Organizations Law Commons, Corporate Finance Commons, Economic Policy Commons, International Business Commons, International Economics Commons, International Law Commons, International Relations Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Legal Studies Commons, Litigation Commons, and the Work, Economy and Organizations Commons Repository Citation Fisch, Jill E. and Gentile, Caroline M., "Vultures or Vanguards?: The Role of Litigation in Sovereign Debt Restructuring" (2004). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 1051. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1051 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VULTURES OR VANGUARDS?: THE ROLE OF LITIGATION IN SOVEREIGN DEBT RESTRUCTURING Jill E. Fisch* Caroline M. Gentile** ABSTRACT The market for sovereign debt differs from the market for corporate debt in several important ways including the risk of opportunistic default by sovereign debtors, the importance of political pressures, and the presence of international development organizations. Moreover, countries are subject to neither liquidation nor standardized processes of debt reorganization. Instead, negotiations between a sovereign debtor and its creditors lead to a voluntary restructuring of the sovereign’s debt.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Bond Workouts
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 2018 The New Bond Workouts William W. Bratton University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Adam J. Levitin Georgetown University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Banking and Finance Law Commons, Bankruptcy Law Commons, Business Organizations Law Commons, Corporate Finance Commons, Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, Finance and Financial Management Commons, Law and Economics Commons, and the Securities Law Commons Repository Citation Bratton, William W. and Levitin, Adam J., "The New Bond Workouts" (2018). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 1732. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1732 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE THE NEW BOND WORKOUTS WILLIAM W. BRATTON† & ADAM J. LEVITIN‡ Bond workouts are a famously dysfunctional method of debt restructuring. The process is so ridden with opportunistic and coercive behavior by both bondholders and bond issuers as to make success intrinsically unlikely. Yet since 2008 bond workouts have quietly started to work. A segment of the restructuring market has shifted from bankruptcy court to out-of-court workouts by way of exchange offers made only to large institutional investors. The new workouts feature a battery of strong-arm tactics by bond issuers, and aggrieved bondholders have complained in court. There resulted a new, broad reading of the primary law governing workouts, section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA), which prohibits majority-vote amendments of bond payment terms and forces bond issuers seeking to restructure to resort to exchange offers.
    [Show full text]
  • Facing the Debt Challenge of Countries That Are “Too Big to Fail”
    7/02/10 Draft [Forthcoming chapter in SOVEREIGN DEBT: FROM SAFETY TO DEFAULT (Robert W. Kolb, ed. 2010-11)] Facing the Debt Challenge of Countries That Are “Too Big To Fail” Steven L. Schwarcz1 The recent financial woes of Greece and other nations have reinvigorated the debate over whether to bail out defaulting countries or, instead, restructure their debt. Bailouts are expensive, in the case of Greece costing potentially hundreds of billions of euros. Although the European Union and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are underwriting the Greek bailout, the IMF’s payment is funded by all IMF member nations—the U.S., for example, provides 17% of IMF funding—so we all share in the burden.2 In the case of Greece, a bailout was virtually inevitable because a default on Greek debt was believed to have the potential to bring down the world financial system, whereas an orderly debt restructuring was impractical. This is a growing problem. As global capital markets increasingly (and inevitably) embrace sovereign bonds, the potential for a country’s debt default to trigger a larger systemic collapse becomes even more tightly linked. 1 Copyright © 2010 by Steven L. Schwarcz, Stanley A. Star Professor of Law & Business, Duke University School of Law, and author of Sovereign Debt Restructuring: A Bankruptcy Reorganization Approach, 85 CORNELL LAW REVIEW 956, and Systemic Risk, 97 GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL 193. 2 Nor are IMF payments made to bail out sovereign countries necessarily profitable investments for the member nations. Member nations earn interest on their deposits in the IMF, but repayment by the IMF, although anticipated, is not assured.
    [Show full text]
  • The Public Use Requirement in Eminent Domain Law: a Rationale Based on Secret Purchases and Private Influence, 92 Cornell L
    Cornell Law Review Volume 92 Article 1 Issue 1 November 2006 The Public seU Requirement in Eminent Domain Law: A Rationale Based on Secret Purchases and Private Influence Daniel B. Kelly Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel B. Kelly, The Public Use Requirement in Eminent Domain Law: A Rationale Based on Secret Purchases and Private Influence, 92 Cornell L. Rev. 1 (2006) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol92/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE "PUBLIC USE" REQUIREMENT IN EMINENT DOMAIN LAW: A RATIONALE BASED ON SECRET PURCHASES AND PRIVATE INFLUENCE Daniel B. Kellyt This Article provides a rationalefor understandingand interpreting the "public use" requirement within eminent domain law. The rationale is based on two factors. First, while the government often needs the power of eminent domain to avoid the problem of strategic holdout, private parties are generally able to purchaseproperty through secret buying agents. The availa- bility of these undisclosed agents makes the use of eminent domain for private parties unnecessary and indeed undesirable. The government, however, is ordinarily unable to make secret purchases because its plans are subject to democratic deliberation and thus publicly known in advance. Second, while the use of eminent domain for traditionalpublic objectives does not create a danger of corruption, the use of such power to benefit private parties invites the potential for inordinate influence.
    [Show full text]