National Anti-Vulture Funds Legislation: Belgium's Turn

Lucas Wozny
{"title":"National Anti-Vulture Funds Legislation: Belgium's Turn","authors":"Lucas Wozny","doi":"10.7916/D8-0WAV-NX59","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sovereign distressed debt investors can create holdout problems during sovereign restructurings. Scholars have suggested a wide-range of normative solutions to alleviate these holdout problems, including ad hoc deals, the creation of a multilateral international sovereign bankruptcy framework, the insertion of collective-action clauses into bonds, the expansion of judicial discretion, and the return of the doctrines of comity and sovereign immunity. However, national legislatures have increasingly begun to exhibit a preference for adopting national legislative solutions to this issue. In 2015, Belgium passed the broadest Anti-Vulture Funds Law to date, which is significant because the law impacts the Euroclear payment system. While this law has received high praise from the United Nations and from other nations also considering passing similar legislation, a careful analysis demonstrates it is not sensitive to the benefits that vulture funds bring, such as providing incentives to sovereigns to form more efficient capital structures, providing a moral hazard counterbalance, serving as liquidity providers on the secondary distressed-debt market, and providing information to the market. If adopted by other nations, Belgium’s law can eliminate the secondary distressed debt market by blocking liquidity-providers from the market. As a result, national legislatures should avoid using Belgium’s law as model law, but rather, enact legislation that enhances active settlement discussions without compromising the bargaining power or rights of either the sovereign or the vulture funds.","PeriodicalId":378416,"journal":{"name":"International Economic Law eJournal","volume":"21 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Economic Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8-0WAV-NX59","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Sovereign distressed debt investors can create holdout problems during sovereign restructurings. Scholars have suggested a wide-range of normative solutions to alleviate these holdout problems, including ad hoc deals, the creation of a multilateral international sovereign bankruptcy framework, the insertion of collective-action clauses into bonds, the expansion of judicial discretion, and the return of the doctrines of comity and sovereign immunity. However, national legislatures have increasingly begun to exhibit a preference for adopting national legislative solutions to this issue. In 2015, Belgium passed the broadest Anti-Vulture Funds Law to date, which is significant because the law impacts the Euroclear payment system. While this law has received high praise from the United Nations and from other nations also considering passing similar legislation, a careful analysis demonstrates it is not sensitive to the benefits that vulture funds bring, such as providing incentives to sovereigns to form more efficient capital structures, providing a moral hazard counterbalance, serving as liquidity providers on the secondary distressed-debt market, and providing information to the market. If adopted by other nations, Belgium’s law can eliminate the secondary distressed debt market by blocking liquidity-providers from the market. As a result, national legislatures should avoid using Belgium’s law as model law, but rather, enact legislation that enhances active settlement discussions without compromising the bargaining power or rights of either the sovereign or the vulture funds.
国家反秃鹫基金立法:轮到比利时了
主权问题债务投资者可能会在主权债务重组期间制造顽固问题。学者们提出了广泛的规范解决方案来缓解这些抵制问题,包括临时协议,建立多边国际主权破产框架,在债券中加入集体行动条款,扩大司法自由裁量权,以及回归礼让和主权豁免的理论。然而,各国立法机构已越来越多地开始倾向于通过国家立法解决这一问题。2015年,比利时通过了迄今为止最广泛的反秃鹫基金法,这一法律意义重大,因为该法律影响了欧洲清算支付系统。虽然这项法律得到了联合国和其他正在考虑通过类似立法的国家的高度赞扬,但仔细分析表明,它对秃鹫基金带来的好处并不敏感,比如激励主权国家形成更有效的资本结构,提供道德风险平衡,在二级不良债务市场上充当流动性提供者,并向市场提供信息。如果被其他国家采纳,比利时的法律可以通过阻止流动性提供者进入市场来消除次级不良债务市场。因此,各国立法机构应避免将比利时的法律作为示范法,而应制定立法,在不损害主权或秃鹫基金议价能力或权利的情况下,加强积极的和解讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信