Argentina, Elliott may finally end bond war

Founder and president of the Elliot Management Corp., Paul Singer, speaks during The New York Times DealBook Conference on Dec. 11, 2014, in New York City.
Thos Robinson | Getty Images for The New York Times.

For the secretive hedge fund Elliott Management, this New Year's Eve will mark more than just the closing prices of its 2014 investments. It will represent a potential turning point in a yearslong dispute with the Republic of Argentina over bonds the country defaulted on during its last big financial crisis.

On Dec. 31, a key clause expires in the offering documents associated with two particular Argentina bond swaps — transactions that it used to substitute new investor bonds for ones it defaulted on in 2001 in exchange for substantial, but not full, payments. And the sunsetting of that clause could pave the way for the settlement of a rancorous dispute with Elliott and other creditors who refused to accept the so-called exchange bonds and instead held out to be made entirely whole.

Some experienced bond market investors, saying there is little upside for Argentina to continue its costly standoff, are expecting the country to offer a new and sweeter deal to Elliott that the litigious hedge fund will accept. But Argentine officials aren't revealing much as the deadline approaches.

"Argentina has always been open to dialogue," said Cecilia Nahón, Argentina's ambassador to the U.S., in a recent telephone interview. She declined to comment on the rights upon future offers, or RUFO, clause specifically, but said that her country had been willing to settle with Elliott, on the same terms offered to other bondholders, for some time now.

"There's an offer on the table to join the other 92.4 percent of bondholders" who accepted the prior exchange offer, "for a 300 percent profit," she said. Elliott and the other investors who have sued for full payment — a group of money managers Nahón and other high-ranking members of the Argentine government refer to as "vulture funds" — are "seeking an exorbitant 1,600 percent profit," she said, which "is not only unfair but also puts at risk any debt restructuring."

Related Tags