Mensajepor Alfredo 2011 » Vie Ago 23, 2013 11:29 am
De otro Barrio
Los jueces, y como era obvio, destacan como muy negativo los argumentos que dio Argentina que "no iban a cumplir voluntariamente" con el mandato de la corte si era negativo, y destacaron los comentarios relacionados de funcionarios argentinos al respecto.
To the contrary, notwithstanding its commitment to resolving disputes involving
the FAA in New York courts under New York law, at the February 27, 2013 oral argument,
counsel for Argentina told the panel that it “would not voluntarily obey” the district court’s
injunctions, even if those injunctions were upheld by this Court. Moreover, Argentina’s officials
have publicly and repeatedly announced their intention to defy any rulings of this Court and the
district court with which they disagree.4 It is within this context that we review the amended
injunctions for abuse of discretion and, finding none, we affirm.5
O sea, afirman lo ultimo de Griesa y descartan las apelaciones del grupo de bonistas europeo y Fintech, PERO, dejan en stand-by la aplicacion efectiva a espera de la CSJ:
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s orders as amended.14 The
appeals from Exchange Bondholder Group, No. 12-4694, and from Fintech Advisory Inc., No.
12-4865, are hereby dismissed. Enforcement of the amended injunctions shall be stayed pending
the resolution by the Supreme Court of a timely petition for a writ of certiorari.
BUENAS NOTICIAS. No se incluye a foreign entities! O sea, la corte aclara que se las menciono solo por tecnicalidades de explicacion del proceso:
The amended injunctions do not directly enjoin any
foreign entities other than Argentina. By naming certain foreign payment system participants
(such as Clearstream Banking S.A., Euroclear Bank S.A./N.V., and Bank of New York
(Luxembourg) S.A), the district court was, again, simply recognizing the automatic operation of
16 Rule 65.
Malas noticias. Se incluye al BNY, pero se le da derecho de apelar (lo que no se le dio a Fintech o los bonistas que se presentaron):
The amended injunctions provide that BNY, as a participant in the payment process of
the Exchange Bonds, “shall be bound by the terms of this ORDER as provided by [Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure] 65(d)(2).” 2012 WL 5895784, at *2. Accordingly, BNY has standing to
appeal.