cricket72
a difesa del gregge
- Registrato
- 13/2/07
- Messaggi
- 13.179
- Punti reazioni
- 1.021
si proviene da questa discussione ARGENTINA MERVAL 54 Holdouts TFA e non TFA
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Nota: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Grazie Cricket di tutta l'attenzione che hai avuto in questi anni di rabbia contro il paese dei ladroni!si proviene da questa discussione ARGENTINA MERVAL 54 Holdouts TFA e non TFA
The CHF bonds in central custody are not at Clearstream, that is why Clearstrem did not have to present them to the paying agent. The CHF bonds are I think elswhere in custody (As I forum member "caniss" understand at Deutsche Bank?) That central custodian (Deutsche Bank?) which would have had to to present the bonds within the "contractual prescription period" (10 years also for CHF bonds?) have forgotten to do it(?). So these CHF bonds have been expired as of the MSA.Newnick in German forum ha scritto:Are we talking about CHF bonds in central custody?mueller ha scritto:It is actually a contradiction that for the CHF bonds the Argentines say that if the CHF bonds had been submitted on time to the paying agent and thus the "contractual prescription" had been avoided as preconditioned in the MSA they would not have been time-barred. At the same time, they say to the DE bonds that they would be time-barred despite their timely presentation to the paying agent... However, Mr. Colazo writes to me that my 130020, 130860 would only be time-barred if I could not show the original "certificate of presentment", which proves that the 10 years "contractual prescription" has been avoided. -> Dateien freigegeben - Acrobat.com
Thereupon I have let deliver the original of Clearstream "certificate of presentment" from Clearstream for my bonds 130020, 130860 and sent to the Argies. Normally now 130020, 130860 would have to be accepted for the Standard Offer because the original "certificate of presentment" for 130020, 130860 was submitted to the Argies as desired.
In this case I can't believe that the presentment was not executed in time by Clearstream, so why didn't they want to pay them back?
A gross mistake or do CHF bonds also have a prescription time of only 10 years like most DEs and a Statute of limitations like in Germany?
In any case, I can't help pointing out that after 17 years, they try to find every possible excuse not to pay back bondholders.
150 instead of the actually accrued 300 or more is peanuts. But they are not satisfied with giving back "peanuts"... they try to give back NOTHING! Real nice and honest people.
The CHF bonds in central custody are not at Clearstream, that is why Clearstrem did not have to present them to the paying agent. The CHF bonds are I think elswhere in custody (As I forum member "caniss" understand at Deutsche Bank?) That central custodian (Deutsche Bank?) which would have had to to present the bonds within the "contractual prescription period" (10 years also for CHF bonds?) have forgotten to do it(?). So these CHF bonds have been expired as of the MSA.
Quotation from Argentina's MSA->
Prescribed Claims” means claims (whether for principal or interest) arising under defaulted Republic of Argentina bonds as to which the contractual prescription period set out in the relevant instrument evidencing those bonds has expired.
The contradiction is that the Argentines say that they would repay the CHF bonds if the bonds had been presented on time and the "certificate of presentment" for the CHF bond was available.
The DE bonds in central custody were in time submitted to the paying agent by the central custodian Clearstream as preconditioned in the MSA and I also sent the original Clearstream "certificate of presentment" to Mr. Colazo as he requested. Nevertheless, they do not want to repay the DE bonds despite the avoidance of the "contractual prescription" and sending them the original Clearstream "certificate of presentment". But the CHF bonds they would repay if the "contractual prescription" had been avoided and the "certificate of presentment" would be showed. It is all crazy....
Newnick your bonds are in CHF and Swiss laws?If the contractual prescription period is longer than 10 years and/or there is a longer statute of limitations in Switzerland, the mystery is solved. Anybody has the O.C. and knows Swiss laws?
GermanHoldout, always to try in helping you and others and put the argies in trouble........It is all crazy....
I think, the contractual prescription period could not be longer than 10 years in case of the CHF bonds otherwise user "caniss" would not have claimed that his CHF bonds had not been timely presented by his central custodian to the paying agent.If the contractual prescription period is longer than 10 years and/or there is a longer statute of limitations in Switzerland, the mystery is solved. Anybody has the O.C. and knows Swiss laws?
To speak to Mr. Strba is impossible. I have already tried it. He is the lawyer of Argentina.It is a good idea for you in trying to contact the arg lawyer or people in that office with the porpouse to get some answer and understand something about theyr action?
The best person is you as German talking and well engaged in the subject.
As you know that lawyer is STRBA in Frankfurt.
Newnick your bonds are in CHF and Swiss laws?
Looking for the O.C. in internet sould be possible to find it.
No Dode, il mio ė un DE. Si stava cercando di capire perche' adesso pare vogliano pagare un CH che prima sembrava prescritto.