The US president sees his budget rejected and it is news in all the newspapers across the world. They have already done this to me, in 2010, Argentina did not have a budget because we did not have enough hands in Congress, the head of state explained during the presentation of 520 houses in the province of San Juan.
Cristina Fernandez also addressed the latest decision from New York Federal Judge Thomas Griesa who has the hedge funds full claim case against Argentina. Griesa in his latest ruling determined that the jurisdiction of the disputed bonds that entered the debt swaps of 2005 and 2010 cannot be changed. The restructured bonds represent 93% of Argentina’s default.
But the Argentine president was defiant: “we will not be watching with our arms folded.
Nevertheless she emphasized that “Argentina will honour its commitments”, alluding to a possible negative rule by the US Supreme Court regarding the hedge funds case.
Earlier this week Judge Griesa not only determined that the jurisdiction of the bonds that entered the debt swaps of 2005 and 2010 cannot be changed but said that the plan announced by President Cristina Fernández on August 26, to reopen the debt-swap and change the payment jurisdiction of existing bonds, is an attempt to evade orders.
The Argentine government has already sent the law mandating the reopening of debt-swaps to Congress, which was passed without major opposition, although the project finally did not include fixing Buenos Aires as the site of payment.
However Argentine Finance Secretary Adrián Cosentino, in a press statement released after the verdict was made public, dismissed the importance of the new ruling, stating that it does not add anything new to the case.
It adds no new element to the case or to the judicial process, which is in another moment of discussion and negotiation. Besides, this order has no relevance to the 7% of bonds still to be restructured,” he added.
This week the US Supreme Court took no action on Argentina’s case against creditors. The court had been expected to announce whether it would review the case, but it was not included in a list of cases accepted or denied for review that was released on Tuesday.
There was no indication when the US highest court might decide whether to accept the case, and given the case's complexity, it could be many weeks. The court could want to hear first the official legal view on the case of the Obama administration.
Argentina argues that the two, NML Capital and Aurelius Capital, lost their right to collect when they declined to take part in the 2005 and 2010 restructurings of nearly 90 billion dollars of defaulted debt.
Argentina argued that paying the full face-value for their bonds would be unfair to the restructured bondholders. It also said being forced to pay the two in full could expand its payment obligations to others and force it back in default on all its debt.