Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Belgian Court to Rule on Enforceability of US Argentine Debt Injunction

September 5, 2013/1 Comment/in /by Gilles Cuniberti
image_pdfimage_print

On August 23rd, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed an injunction ordering Argentina to make ratable payment to holders of initial defaulted bonds whenever it would make payments on its restructured debt. 

Despite not being parties to the injunction, the US Court made clear that holders of the restructured debt might be found in contempt if they assisted Argentina in evading the injunction.

Several European holders of the restructured debt, including Knighthead Capital Management LLC, are seeking a declaration from a Belgian court that the injunction is unenforceable in Europe and that Belgian intermediaries may pass payments despite the injunction. Katia Porzecanski at Bloomberg reports that a hearing is scheduled today in Brussels. 

I understand that the defense to the recognition of the injunction is a 2004 Belgian Law prohibiting any obstruction in cash payments made by settlement agents. This suggests that the argument should be framed in public policy terms.

In June, Knighthead Capital Management LLC and other third parties had sought an interim injunction ordering Belgium based intermediary Euroclear to pass payments to be made by Argentina to holders of the restructured debt. The Belgian Court held that the application was premature, as the issue of the impact of the injunction on Euroclear would only arise if Argentina actually made the relevant payments. At the time, however, the Court found that it had not been provided with evidence that Argentina would, in breach of the injunction. The Court suggested that, should Argentina want to pay holders of the restructured debt, plaintiffs would still have 30 days to apply for a declaration that Euroclear should pay notwithstanding the US injunction.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Gilles Cuniberti https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Gilles Cuniberti2013-09-05 08:03:522013-09-05 12:51:08Belgian Court to Rule on Enforceability of US Argentine Debt Injunction
1 reply
  1. Patrick Wautelet says:
    September 10, 2013 at 8:15 pm

    For those interested in technical details, the 2004 Act referred to in this post is most probably the Act of 19 November 2004 (published in the Official
    Gazette of 28 December 2004). Article 15 of the Act amended Article 9 of the Belgian Settlement Finality Law. The modified text reads as follows : “Every settlement account concerning cash with an operator of the system [such as Euroclear Bank] or with a settlement organization of a system as well as every transfer order of monies through a credit institution operating under Belgian or foreign law that must be transferred to such a settlement account concerning cash, shall not be subject to attachment, receivership or blocking in any
    way, by a participant (other than the operator or the settlement organization), a counterparty or a third party”

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: Fellowship Announcements Link to: Fellowship Announcements Fellowship Announcements Link to: US Court Enforces Award Nullified in Country of Origin Link to: US Court Enforces Award Nullified in Country of Origin US Court Enforces Award Nullified in Country of Origin
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top