The return of the vulture: today Aurelius attacks again against Argentina

On April 18, it is the turn of Argentina's defense in the Preska court to trigger a curious miracle: to avoid Aurelius's attack, lawyers representing the country have defended the intervention of the INDEC to K. That day, the country badured the American justice that the government of Cristina Fernández de Kirhcner was entitled to change the basic year of the calculation of the GDP and that the accuser had not demonstrated that there had been a mismanagement of the figures of this agency between 2013 and 2014. Aurelius, who claims handling of the INDEC in the framework of the non-payment of dividends of the PBI coupon corresponding to the 2013 financial year that was to be liquidated in 2015, prepared on the basis of the evidence on this supposedly illegal intervention, which is presented today in front of the Second Circuit Court of New York.

On April 18, in the same jurisdiction, where Argentina had pleaded for years against holdouts and vulture funds in the "lawsuit of the century", the government had to defend the direction of INDEC at the time of Kirchner . default of 2001. The current curiosity of the judgment that takes into account the debt issued after default, and by movements made by the same government that negotiated the exit from the crisis. One of the vulture funds (the third for the amount claimed for outstanding government bonds at default of 2002) was Aurelius. This fund received about 760 million USD from Argentina in April 2016, when the country formalized the payment of money corresponding to the lawsuit lost in court ordered by Thomas Griesa. It is estimated that for this transaction, the fund's earnings exceeded 1,000% in dollars; with what is understood, the bookmaker's willingness to continue operating against Argentina in all possible occasions. One of them was the decision of the then Minister of the Economy, Axel Kicillof, to change the GDP measurement base for 2013, the year in which the country pbaded at 2.9% without exceeding 3.2% annually If the country had exceeded this last percentage increase of its product, it would have had to settle the coupon of the GDP of an estimated amount to more than 3,5 billions of US dollars, impossible in a year when stocks were fully operational and the country was in place. prevented from obtaining money from creditors. If Argentina had paid, it should have taken money from the reserves, which was more than dangerous (almost utopian) in a year when markets were arguing with Kirchner for the stability of the dollar.

The government then changed the basis for measuring GDP in 2014, based on the 2004 calculation exercise (with already ruling Kirchner) and no longer in 2003, as was traditionally done. To make matters worse, this was the year considered valid for the calculation of the previous PBI coupon liquidations by the same Kirchner government, making the 2013 change even more suspicious. For the local market, the manipulation was due to the political decision not to pay the coupon and protect the meager dollars of the reserves. In 2014, as local and foreign operators discussed the question of whether there was deliberate manipulation of growth percentages, most PBI coupon holders chose to dispose of these papers, resulting in a fall. 50% of their value. It is badumed that it was at this time that Aurelius began buying these public securities per coin, acquiring a portfolio that led to the current claim of $ 90 million. Aurelius waited for the trial to be set for the debt before the default and was presented again in the Preska court, but this time to claim those papers after the 2001 crisis. The vulture fund is now claiming the handling of the debt. INDEC, and the damage caused to the holders of these government securities, having demonstrated the possession of several sheets of the PBI coupon issued in 2005, which pays more money, in pesos and dollars, depending on the type of title , provided that Argentina will grow up.

Argentina's defense lawyers said in April that Kicillof's management had the right to change INDEC's drafting mechanisms, regardless of whether that decision caused losses to debt holders. volunteers. And that, on the other hand, it is not demonstrated in the litigant's presentations (the vulture fund) that there was an intervention of the INDEC during the years of Kirchnerism.

Aurelius is an old acquaintance of Argentina. And many countries destined for mismanagement of their public and private debts. It belongs to Mark Brodsky, a disciple of Paul Singer and former Elliott employee, who became independent at the beginning of the last decade and opened his own Vulture law firm. Although his most important and profitable business has been with Argentina and the "judgment of the century", he is known for his interest in diving around the world to seek business opportunities in states on the verge of to reach the market of difficulties. For example, against Puerto Rico in times of economic and financial crisis and against Petrobras in full trial for the "Lava Jato".