I actually downvoted you because the world `holdup` made it sound a bit inflammatory. Having read the links, I see where you're coming from, and changed to an upvote. This is certainly one of those topics that sensationalists will try to reduce to easy answers, when it's clear there aren't any.

It's a difficult situation because a lot of these bonds have been resold at a steep discount. Someone who paid ten cents on the dollar for a bond has much different financial incentives than I may have as an original buyer... should the fact that there are more of them mean they can screw me over?

>I just edited my comment to double down due to downvotes, but this ruling will ultimately damage the US more than Argentina. If we establish that it will be impossible to restructure debt if you issue your bonds in the US, we've established that there's no reason to issue your bonds in the US.

Every country in the world knows that it is going to be easier to restructure if you issue bonds under local law. No one selects New York law for its bonds out of some naive inertia. Argentina specifically went out of its way to select New York law and deliberately put in a pari passu clause because it had a history of defaulting on debt, and it thought it wouldn't be able to raise money, or at least not at the same rate, if it issued bonds under local law.

I can't think of any possible reason to relieve a country of obligations that were deliberately and knowingly undertaken to tie its own hands in order to make its debt more credible.

If you want collective action on restructured debt put in a collective action clause. If you want a sweetheart interpretation of your debt clauses issue it under local law. Every country that is issuing debt knows these things, they aren't rocket science. The reason they sometimes choose not to is because they want to pay a lower coupon and/or be sure that the whole issue will be purchased.

Well no, if we estabilish what you say, then we've only found out that US jurisdiction is friendly to creditors and less friendly to debtors, and nothing else.

It doesn't mean that there's no reason to issue your bonds in the US, on the contrary - it means that if you have a debt-reputation problem but feel safe in your ability to repay, then you'll want to issue your bonds in US to 'put your money where your mouth is' and get a better price. Or, in cases like Argentina, the potential investors will say 'either US jurisdiction or no deal'.

There _is_ reason to issue your bonds in the US (e.g. governed by New York law). Investors trust that the bond contract will be honoured because, if not, it's likely to be enforced by the courts.

Judge Griesa decision shouldn't be solomonic. He decides based on a contract. His role is not to favour one part or the other.The percentage of bondholder that accepted the restructuring is irrelevant. Also, something that is not usually mentioned is that an appeals court upheld the judge's decision.