Buenos días:
Febo escribió:
... los buitres reclaman el pari passu y Griesa se los concede. A mi juicio, no le falta razón ...
Menos mal ...
Eso sí, tendrías que hablar con los del FMI y varios expertos en este tipo de cuestiones y haceles llegar tu opinión, ya que
ellos (los que saben y por eso les publican artículos al respecto) opinan (muy) distinto.
Por ejemplo, este tipo (Rodrigo Olivares-Caminal), es professor en ley bancaria y financiera del Centro de Estudios de Leyes Comerciales de la Universidad 'Queen Mary' de Londres, dice:
---
"The interpretation of the pari passu clause in the pre-Argentine litigation was incorrect. It was based on the Belgian court’s interpretation of the pari passu clause in the broad sense. Post-Argentine litigation, the interpretation could have been based on the correct reading of the clause based on an actual breach of it due to the ranking or narrow form as a result of the legal subordination from the Lock Law.
Unfortunately this was not the case.
This was a great missed opportunity, and it will trigger a new round of litigation.
As Olivares-Caminal (2009) and Gulati and Scott (2012) noted, the clause has little or no meaning in the sovereign debt context. However, it is a boilerplate and boilerplates are sticky. After the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
it will become even stickier. Looking forward, it is the task of lawyers – as guardians of the purity of language in contracts – to clearly state whether the pari passu clause should read as “rank” or “rateable payment” instead of the not very clear Latin phrase 'pari passu'. In the meantime, there are still many contracts with Frankenstein-like pari passu clauses that will be litigated."
---
Ver: "The pari passu clause in sovereign debt instruments: developments in recent litigation"
http://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap72u.pdf
Veremos
