The origins of Argentina’s litigation and arbitration saga, 2002-2014

Porzecanski, Arturo C. (2015): The origins of Argentina’s litigation and arbitration saga, 2002-2014.

Abstract

The voluminous and protracted litigation and arbitration saga featuring the Republic of Argentina (mostly as defendant or respondent, respectively) has established important legal and arbitral precedents, as illustrated by three cases involving Argentina which were appealed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and were settled in 2014. At first glance, the scale of Argentina-related litigation activity might be explained by the sheer size of the government’s 2001 default, the largest-ever up to that point. However, its true origins are to be found in the unusually coercive and aggressive way that the authorities in that country went about defaulting on and restructuring their sovereign debt obligations. The mass filing of arbitration claims, in turn, was prompted by Argentina’s radical and seemingly irreversible changes to the “rules of the game” affecting foreign strategic investors, which clashed with commitments prior governments had made in multiple bilateral investment treaties. In sum, a major deviation from best practices as understood and settled in the early 2000s, which codified how economic policy adjustments are to be made in a way that minimizes damage to the investment climate, preserves access to the international capital markets, and promotes rapid and sustainable economic growth, lies at the root of Argentina’s litigation and arbitration saga during 2002-2014.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Argentina, default, debt, sovereign, litigation, arbitration, investor, holdout, ICSID
• Subjects: E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E6 - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook; F - International Economics > F3 - International Finance > F34 - International Lending and Debt Problems; F - International Economics > F5 - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy > F51 - International Conflicts ; Negotiations ; Sanctions; F - International Economics > F5 - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy > F55 - International Institutional Arrangements; F - International Economics > F5 - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy > F59 - Other; F - International Economics > F6 - Economic Impacts of Globalization > F65 - Finance; K - Law and Economics > K4 - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior; N - Economic History > N2 - Financial Markets and Institutions > N26 - Latin America ; Caribbean

References

Emma Kingdon, Leveraging Litigation: Enforcing Sovereign Debt Obligations in NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 37 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 30 (2014).

Brett Neve, NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina: An Alternative to the Inadequate Remedies under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 39 N.C. J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 631 (2014).

Giorgio Sacerdoti, BIT Protections and Economic Crises: Limits to Their Coverage, the Impact of Multilateral Financial Regulation and the Defense of Necessity, 28 ICSID Rev. 351 (2013).

Christoph Schreuer, Investment Arbitration, in The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication 296 (Gebare P. R. Romano, Karen J. Alter & Yuval Shany, eds., 2013).

Jürgen Bröhmer, Immunity and Sovereign Bonds, in Immunities in the Age of Global Constitutionalism 190 (Anne Peters, Evelyne Lagrange, Stefan Oeter & Christian Tomuschat eds., 2014).

Donald Francis Donovan, Abaclat & Others v. Argentine Republic: As a Collective Claims Proceeding, 27 ICSID Rev. 261 (2012).

Céline Lévesque, Abaclat & Others v. Argentine Republic: The Definition of Investment, 27 ICSID Rev. 247 (2012).

Andrea Marco Steingruber, Abaclat & Others v. Argentine Republic: Consent in Large-scale Arbitration Proceedings, 27 ICSID Rev. 237 (2012).

Samuel Wordsworth, Abaclat & Others v. Argentine Republic: Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Pre-conditions to Arbitration, 27 ICSID Rev. 255 (2012).

Eric David Kasenetz, Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures: The Aftermath of Argentina’s State of Necessity and the Current Fight in the ICSID, 41 Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev. 709 (2010).

Joanna Simões, Sovereign Bond Disputes before ICSID Tribunals: Lessons from the Argentina Crisis, 17 Law & Bus. Rev. Am. 683 (2011).

Mark B. Feldman, The United States Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 in Perspective: A Founder’s View, 35 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 302 (1986).

Alice de Jonge, Transnational Corporations and International Law: Accountability in the Global Business Environment, 112 (2011).

Jeromin Zettelmeyer, Christoph Trebesch & Mitu Gulati, The Greek Debt Restructuring: An Autopsy, 28 Econ. Pol 513 (2013).

Lex Rieffel, Restructuring Sovereign Debt: The Case for Ad Hoc Machinery, 95 (2003).

Christina Daseking, Atish Ghosh, Timothy Lane, & Alun Thomas, Lessons from the Crisis in Argentina 38 (IMF Occasional Paper #236, 2004).

Arturo C. Porzecanski, From Rogue Creditors to Rogue Debtors: Implications of Argentina’s Default, 6 Chi. J. Int'l L. 318 (2005).

Henrik Enderlein, Christoph Trebesch & Laura von Daniels, Sovereign Debt Disputes: A Database on Government Coerciveness during Debt Crises, 31 J. Int’l Mon. & Fin. 250 (2012).

Eric David Kasenetz, Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures: The Aftermath of Argentina’s State of Necessity and the Current Fight in the ICSID, 41 Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. 718 (2010).

José E. Alvarez & Kathryn Khamsi, The Argentine Crisis and Foreign Investors: A Glimpse into the Heart of the Investment Regime, in Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy 2008/2009, 379 (Karl P. Sauvant ed., 2009).

Tsai- Yu Lin, Systemic Reflections on Argentina’s Non-Compliance with ICSID Arbitral Awards: A New Role of the Annulment Committee at Enforcement?, Cont. Asia Arb. J., Vol. 5, 2012, 1-22.