Skip to main content

Sovereign Debt and Drive-In Movies, Part II

As Anna Gelpern observes on The Credit Slips blog, there is no real political support for an international bankruptcy court for sovereigns.

What less daunting solutions might there be?

The obvious one is that bond-issuing sovereigns can change the language of their issuing documents. Couldn't they simply stop using the pari passu language that the holdouts have been employing in the New York courts? 

Well, yes, although something more than simply deleting that Latin phrase will be necessary. Fortunately, some very bright legal minds have given a lot of thought to the draftsmanship involved.

Most bonds issued by sovereigns nowadays have collective action clauses. These explicitly allow for a restructuring in which some supermajority of the creditors can vote to accept a "haircut," as it is called, and holdouts will then be stuck receiving the same payments with the same haircut, too.

Without a CAC, the situation is as if a drive-in movie theatre were prohibited from building a fence around its grounds, [an opaque fence of course, and one taller than any convenient viewer spot outside of itself] unless everyone in town agreed. The last hold-out on that agreement would be in an enviable situation, at the expense of the movie lovers who were more agreeable. But, with a CAC, the movie theatre needs only the approval of [say] two-thirds of the locals to build the fence should that fiscal crisis come.

But every country has until now been on its own in devising the wording of its own CAC, and a lot of disparate contract language is out there, threatening endless further litigation and presumably some Argentina-ish results.

The latest development is that the International Capital Market Association has devised standard language for collective action clauses.

The solution to the hold-out problem, then, will involve muddling through the messes created by the sort of contact language used thus far, until the new superior language becomes dominant, and the nesses will disappear. No reason to call in a planetary government after all, folks.


Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …