The Vulture funds who are litigating in the US Justice against Argentina for the erroneous calculation of GDP growth, which according to them negatively affected their payments, appealed this Monday the judge’s ruling Loretta Preska that benefited the country in the “PBI Coupon case”.
“Funds appeal the ruling of Judge Loretta Preska that benefited the Argentine Republic in the GDP Coupon case. Let us remember that the New York judge did not give her opinion on the calculation of the GDP, but rather dismissed the creditors’ claim for not having met the necessary requirements to be able to sue the country,” explained the CEO of Latam Advisors, Sebastián Maril. This is a lawsuit initiated at the end of 2019, and in which Argentina achieved a ruling in its favor a month ago.
Previously, the plaintiffs could not make any presentations since they were not qualified, so the ruling in favor of Preska did not address the underlying issue but simply discarded it.
PBI coupon: how much the Government will have to pay if it fails to negotiate
The case involves a significant sum ofUS$500 millionwhile a second lawsuit filed by bondholders represented by the Bank of New York is still ongoing for an amount that amounts to US$6,000 million.
The Argentine state avoids the payment of some US$1.4 billion in the US courts claimed by the funds Aurelius Capital, Novoriver, ACP, 683 Capital, WASO, Romano, among others.
PBI coupons: what they are and how the debt originated
PBI coupons were issued in 2005 as part of the restructuring of the debt defaulted in 2002 and they had to pay returns to the bondholders every time Argentina reached a growth of its Gross Product of 3.3% annually.
After their release on the market, PBI coupons quickly became one of the favorite assets of the local market in the face of the growth at “Chinese rates” that took place during the presidency of Néstor Kirchner and the first mandate of Cristina Kirchner.
In it last quarter of 2013the GDP calculation formula and the annual growth at that time closed at 3.2%, 0.1% below the 3.3% that required payment. So, there were no new disbursements for that concept.
Those unspecified payments were what generated the lawsuit resolved last year in London that added US$ 1,440 million to the external debt national.
Source: Ambito
