Starving the Vultures: NML Capital v. Republic of Argentina and Solutions to the Problem of Distressed-Debt Funds

Starving the Vultures: NML Capital v. Republic of Argentina and Solutions to the Problem of Distressed-Debt Funds

Sovereigns, like individuals and firms, assume debt. Unlike individuals and firms, however, sovereigns cannot die and cannot declare bankruptcy. As such, a country’s ability to restructure its obligations in the face of severe financial turmoil is paramount to the smooth functioning of its domestic economy, as well as the overall global economy.

Most sovereign creditors willingly work with sovereigns to restructure debt in the face of default. However, distressed-debt funds, often referred to as “vulture funds,” purchase sovereign debt at a discount on the secondary bond market and litigate against the sovereign country to compel a judgment or settlement for up to the full value of the bonds. Such distressed-debt funds have pestered Argentina since its $100 billion default in 2002. Although 93 percent of Argentina’s bondholders restructured their debt, a small group of holdouts chose to litigate to recover the full value of their bonds. Argentina exhausted its appeals and the vulture funds have won a judgment in the United States entitling them to over a billion dollars. As of August 2014, Argentina has refused to pay the vulture funds and has entered a technical default.

This Comment tracks the litigation in NML Capital v. Republic of Argentina, and discusses potential institutional, statutory, and judicial solutions to the problem of vulture funds. Furthermore, the Comment attempts to demonstrate that the reasoning underpinning the Second Circuit’s decision to uphold the district court’s judgment, namely, that the judgment will not undermine future debt restructuring efforts, is based on the flawed premise that nowcommonly utilized Collective Action Clauses (CACs) will prevent vulture funds from holding out in the future. Rather, after NML Capital, the recent proliferation of CACs in sovereign debt instruments could actually stymie future restructuring efforts, as bondholders’ rational interests prompt them to sit out of restructuring attempts and possibly litigate to collect a greater amount. The vulture fund problem highlights a tension between unyielding adherence to the rule of law and moral concerns for the economic well-being of developing, semi-developed, and developed countries alike. The situation reveals the muddled shades of gray between strictly upholding the rule of law, which thereby promotes the largely unproductive and malignant behavior of distressed-debt funds, and massaging the rules to help Argentina and its people escape potentially severe economic suffering, which could promote irresponsible sovereign behavior and undermine courts’ vital commitment to upholding the rule of law.


More in this Issue

Gaming Sovereignty? A Plea for Protecting Worker’s Rights While Preserving Tribal Sovereignty

Tribally owned gaming facilities have become an increasingly popular vehicle for economic development throughout Indian Country. As an incidental consequence of this industry’s growth, many non-tribal members now come into contact with tribal-gaming enterprises as either customers or employees. Consequently, tribal gaming establishments have become a vital nexus in battles over what tribal sovereignty should […]

Breaking Bad? The Uneasy Case for Regulatory Breakeven Analysis

Often regulatory benefits can be hard to quantify because they deal with harms that are not traded in markets or because the probability of harm is not well understood. Breakeven analysis offers one plausible way of addressing the problem. But it is no panacea. It may fail to improve the rationality of decisions, especially in […]

Quality Control: A Reply to Professor Sunstein

Quality Control: A Reply to Professor Sunstein Unless cost-benefit analysis finds room for the nonquantifiable and nonmonetizable benefits of regulation, it will skew systematically against government action to address social problems that have significant nonquantifiable and nonmonetizable dimensions. In The Limits of Quantification-drawn from the 2013 Brennan Center Jorde Symposium at Berkeley Law-Professor Cass R. […]

Quantifying Regulatory Benefits

Quantifying Regulatory Benefits This Essay makes three principal claims. First, it shows that breakeven analysis is a useful technique for adding structure to costbenefit analysis when a regulatory benefit has not been quantified. In particular, breakeven analysis can sometimes address the judicial hostility to using nonquantified benefits as trumps. But it is a secondbest approach […]

The Limits of Quantification

The Limits of Quantification The difficulty of quantifying benefits and costs is a recurrent one in both public policy and ordinary life. Much of the time, we cannot quantify the benefits of potential courses of action, or the costs, or both, and we must nonetheless decide whether and how to proceed. Under existing executive orders, […]