Skip to main content

A Fair Hearing for Sovereign Debt

Last July, when US federal judge Thomas Griesa ruled that Argentina had to repay in full the "vulture" funds that had bought its sovereign debt at rock-bottom prices, the decision reverberated far and wide, affecting bonds issued in a variety of jurisdictions. Do US court rulings really apply to contracts executed in other countries?

NEW YORK – Last July, when United States federal judge Thomas Griesa ruled that Argentina had to repay in full the so-called vulture funds that had bought its sovereign debt at rock-bottom prices, the country was forced into default, or “Griesafault." The decision reverberated far and wide, affecting bonds issued in a variety of jurisdictions, suggesting that US courts held sway over contracts executed in other countries.

Ever since, lawyers and economists have tried to untangle the befuddling implications of Griesa's decision. Does the authority of US courts really extend beyond America's borders?

Now, a court in the United Kingdom has finally brought some clarity to the issue, ruling that Argentina's interest payments on bonds issued under UK law are covered by UK law, not US judicial rulings. The decision – a welcome break from a series of decisions by American judges who do not seem to understand the complexities of global financial markets – conveys some important messages.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Subscribe

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

https://prosyn.org/4CxLp8k;

Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated Cookie policy, Privacy policy and Terms & Conditions