Skip to main content
ENES

Search the Bretton Woods Project site

After SCOTUS: Next steps in sovereign debt restructuring

In the wake of the US Supreme Court’s decisions in Argentina v. NML and Argentina’s subsequent default, sovereign debt has emerged as a critical issue for global policymakers. This session brings together a wide range of viewpoints to review practical proposals to remedy the challenges created by the SCOTUS decisions and to make future sovereign debt workouts more effective, efficient and equitable.

Welcoming Remarks:

Brett House, Senior Fellow, Jeanne Sauvé Foundation

Chair/Moderator: Eric LeCompte, Executive Director, Jubilee USA Network

Panelists:

Sean Hagan

Martin Brooke

Benu Schneider

William Ledward

Jeremy Pam

  • Thirdly – A risk of new legal mechanisms is adding new complexity which can make it harder for market participants to predict the outcome, and increases the chance of confusion
  • One explanation of the Argentina case is that US judges are confused about a single, obscure clause – so is it a good idea to multiply them?

  • Fourth – any individual new mechanism may be insufficient, though the different possibilities are not necessarily exclusive though adding the whole laundry list as I said in my first point is likely to lead to an incoherent outcome
  • Regarding the previous proposals, improved contractual clauses is a positive way to go – Aggregation remains a good idea, especially broader though excess complexity would be a problem
  • Statutory approaches – though SDRM is off the table there are many alternatives. I have two reservations, firstly the question of feasibility. Though 11 states voted against the resolution, just as in 2002 with SDRM they were very significant
  • Secondly the complexity of any new treaty for a new international body may not be a good thing, to set in motion the creation of a giant debt resolution bar as exists around the WTO settlement mechanism

  • Non-treaty international fora, for example as suggested by Brett House, which could be a useful contribution but by definition and design its insufficient and intended to complement existing contractual and institutional mechanisms
  • Non international statutory approaches – e.g. national approaches – the Fund staff paper discusses this idea briefly, and I think the principal advantage of it is that if narrowly drafted, it might be more feasible than an international statutory approach providing some targeted protection for successful sovereign debt negotiations, e.g. those agreed by a super-majority of creditors and implicitly or explicitly by the Fund, assuming a program
  • In effect this would be empowering the collective action clauses, for which there is a precedent in some international and national legislative actions related to Iraq’s restructuring in the last decade.

  • Therefore the problem is not so simple as to be framed as market vs statute.