History of vulture funds
Litigation by creditors against sovereign States private was a rare phenomenon until the 1970s. The legislation at the time did not favor creditors. There was a doctrine of immunity of sovereign States and a reluctance by the courts to interfere in disputes over sovereign debt.
However, the main reason for the lack of cases is that it was not until the mid-1970s, after the oil crisis, when banks with huge excess funds from deposits in petrodollars, decided to organize Bank unions (syndicated loans) to provide to developing countries. The creation of a secondary market for securitized loans encouraged still more the offer of loan which in many cases were lending sub-prime to countries in distress (or corrupt governments) without the possibility of returning them.
The second oil shock at the end of the 1970s contributed to speed up the process (more funds to lend and further financing needs of the countries).
If in 1973 only 1/3 of Latin America lending came from private banks, in 1980 they exceeded already 70%. Between 1973 and 1983 Latin American external debt increased from 48 billion dollars to 350 billion.
In 1992 the Supreme Court of the United States determined in the case Argentina Republic against Weltover that sovereign bond issue could be considered, in certain cases, a commercial activity under the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act., putting in question the principle of sovereign immunity which had governed until then. This paved the way for private creditors could bring to trial sovereign States in US courts for non-payment of debts.
By lobbying and donations legal doctrine was changing in favor of the creditors of sovereign debt. Lenders began to demand that new emissions would include a clause with the power to litigate in courts outside the issuing country in the event of non-payment.
The first scavengers funds made their first steps in the enabling environment of the crash of 1987 and the recession of the early 1990s. Paul Singer and its vulture fund Elliott Associates, created in 1977, took part in the breaking of the famous airline TWA and later in the restructuring of MCI, WorldCom, Enron, Telecom Italy SpA, Elektrim,...While Paul Singer sharpened their tools in the United States, Ken Dart began practicing in the restructuring of Latin American debt environment.
Brazil
The Latin American debt crisis began in the early 1980s with the default of Mexico and spread quickly, wave after wave, to all the Southern Cone. The Brazilian debt soared to $ 121 billion. For more than a decade the creditors ( USA and European banks) attempted a restructuring agreement. Finally, they reached a global agreement with the plan Brady (swapping, with a corresponding discount, old bonds for Brady bonds that had as collateral or guarantee the IMF).
The last country to participate in the plan was Brazil in 1994 (750 banks affected by a total of 50 billion dolars) Ken Dart, perceiving that a Brady agreement would come, obtained the 4% of the total Brazilian bonds (35,000 million) paying only 375 million dollars. When finally creditors and debtors where close to reach an agreement according to the Brady Plan, Ken Dart, thanks to its 4% of the total debt, forced the extension of litigation for 3 years more, aiming to collect 1,400 (face value more interest). Finally Ken Dart obteined a bounty of 980 million (161% gain)
Ken Dart renounced the USA for not paying taxes.
Lives in the Cayman Islands, has a gigantic yacht armored with anti-aircraft weaponry and has the nationality of Belize. He has attacked other countries (Panama, Ecuador,...)
Ken Dart caught his fingers by investing in the gruesome process of privatization in Russia in the 1990s. He smelled blood and went to hunt. He acquired small, but significant percentages in energy subsidiaries companies hoping to take advantage of the restructuring and mergers that were going to produce. In Russia there are not contractual Anglo-Saxon laws governing financial operations but those of the Russian mafia. His competitors were of a kind worse than him and his demands and litigation were like scare an elephant with a fly swatter. Possibly due to his Russian experience he has shielded and armed his yacht from where he conducts its business.
Peru
In the 1990s a scavenger Fund called NML (based in the Cayman Islands and subsidiary of Elliott Associates) won a case against Peru that earned him a 400% profit. Paul Singer, the CEO of Elliott, admired on Wall Street, earned the affectionate nickname of Vulture Singer among their comrades.
In 1996, Elliott Associates, following the restructuring of the Peru debt (Brady plan), bought devalued bonds of public debt in the secondary market by an amount of $ 11 million, but not swapped them. He then blackmailed Peru in exchange of a rescue of 58 million by their titles.
In 1999, Elliott Associates won the case in their favor in the Court of the Southern District of New York, allowing them to seize commercial assets of the Peruvian Government in the U.S. worth $ 57 million.
But Elliott Associates, rather than trying to seize assets owned by Peru, pointed to intercept flows of payments carried out by Peru creditors.
Elliott Associates learned that Peru was obliged to make a payment in September 2000 to holders of Brady bonds. The flow of funds would be deposited in Chase Manhattan Bank since that this Bank had been appointed as fiscal agent of the Brady bonds. This bank send them to accounts that creditors had opened at Euroclear (intra-European Bank clearing system) in Belgium and the Depository Trust Company in the USA.
On September 26, 2000 Elliott Associates filed its claim to the Court of appeal in Brussels brandishing the
pari pasu clause (if you pay one must pay all) contained in its Peruvian bonds. Brussels accepted the interpretation proposed to him by the lawyers of Elliott Associates. The Court of appeals prohibited payments to creditors of Peruvian bonds through Euroclear. Peru was again threatened by a default. This forced Peru to yield in 2001 and pay the ransom demanded by the vulture fund.
Nicaragua
LNC Investments bought in 1986 claims against Nicaragua (bonds issued in 1980) for a dim of its face value (since the 1980s these contracts have a clause that in case of non-payment Anglo-Saxon courts are competent in disputes).
In 1995 Nicaragua restructured its foreign debt and more than 80% of the bonds participated in it. LNC Fund did not accept the exchange and started several processes to cash face value more interest. On 21 August 1996, LNC took the case to the Court of first instance of New York.
On 2 April 1999, the American Court sentenced Nicaragua to pay more than 80 million dollars to the vulture fund. LNC also obtained a favorable judgment of the English High Court in February 2001.
In June 2000 LNC tried to appropriate the money that two airlines had to pay to Nicaragua for tax related rights of flights to Managua. The American Court where the case was presented did not accept the claim therefore considered that these payments were immune under the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
With the favorable sentences in hand (1999 and 2001) LNC, inspired by the case against Peru v. Elliott Associates, swung the
pari passu clause to seize funds circulating in Euroclear intended to pay the debt restructured in 1995. The agent commissioned by Nicaragua to make the payments was the branch of Deutsche Bank AG in London. LNC obtained an order to confiscate such payments in London in July 2003.
The move went you wrong since the payment was made via the branch of Deutsche Bank AG in New York. Then he sued, citing the violation of the
pari passu clause, and obtained an order of the Commercial Court of Brussels preventing any payment to restructured Nicaraguan debt holders via Euroclear. However, the order was appealed and the European Court of Appeal dismissed the interest of the vulture fund.
Zambia
Debt Advisory International Fund from the British Virgin Islands operates several vultures, including Donegal International Fund. In 1998 Zambia declared a default on its debt which was restructured. The Romanian Government negotiated the payment of an old debt related to an acquisition of machines and vehicles used for agriculture in. amount of $ 3 million
In 1999
Donegal International sniffed the operation and acquired this debt by $ 3.3 million. End of 2005 Zambia announced that the United States had agreed to cancel debt amounting to $ 280 million. In this way Zambia managed to save 40 million in interest payable in 2006, which would be earmarked for combating AIDS (20% of the adult population HIV-positive) to expand the health network and build schools for 300,000 children.
The announcement of the cancellation of the debt by American taxpayers was the opportunity that the scavengers where waiting for. In 2006, a court in London ruled in favour of Donegal international. $ 55 million (main face value more the interest accumulated at compound interest). The Zambian Government ended up recognizing the sentence (a charitable foundation of the President had received a suspicious donation of $ 2 million by courtesy of Donegal International). The loot: 17 times the 3.3 million disbursed in 1999. The consequences: parking of the construction of schools and the expansion of the Zambian health network.
Congo Brazzaville
Congo Brazzaville, a country rich in raw materials and oil, with a long tradition of corrupt governments, owes huge amounts to investors and western banks.
In 1996 Elliott Associates, through its subsidiary Kensington International, acquired for $10 million sovereign debt issued in the 1980's at a huge discount.
In this case, the vulture fund attacked on the flank. Instead of aiming at shares owned by Congo they seized royalties and taxes paid by oil industries prospecting in Congo ($39 million).
The London court accepted Kensington International's version that they be treated as 'commercial shares' given that Congo used them to pay US commercial debt and thus they were not covered under soverign debt immunity which protected payments made by the DRC.
Not content with the results (they intended to receive $100 million of the face value plus interest) Elliott Associates set out to vilify the corruption reigning in the country. Paul Singer financed and directed a whole staff of investigators and journalists whose sole objective is to denounce the real or supposed corruption corruption of those who resist paying the rescues. Habitual clients of tax havens had no difficulty 'discovering' aseries of bank accounts hidden behind straw men related to the son of the president and the state oil company SCNP. Kensington International unashamedly announced that 'vulture funds and their charges have brought to light mechanisms by which wealth is diverted from the country abroad.
Republic of Congo
In the 1980's the Yugoslav engineering company Energoinvest DD agreed with Zaire to construct a electricity transmission plant in Congo. The project was financed by the same Energoinvest DD made a loan to to Zaire and the state-owned company Societé Nationale d'Elictricité. The loan of $37 million was not repaid. Finally the loan was acquired by FG Hemisphere (and another vulture fund directed by Michael Sheenan) for $3,3 million. Immediately they presented demands in in courts in various countries claiming more than $100 million.
Once they had received favourable rulings they set about tracking down shares in the DRC to appropriate. First they tried to seize shares in a held by a state-owned mining company in Belgium. In the USA they tried to seize properties owned by the DRC in Washington DC.
The Chinese state company China Railway Group participated in a joint venture agreement with Gecamines, a DRC state mining company. The agreement included the payment of $221 million to the Congo government for extraction rights.
Knowing of this agreement FG Hemisphere tried to intercept a payment of $104 million that China Railway Group owed to the DRC in Hong Kong. The vulture fund claimed the money in in the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong but failed.
The Congolese company Gecamines appealed against the harassment of the vulture fund to the Privy Council in London which in July 2012 ruled in favour of Gecamines.
FG Hemisphere continued litigating and brought the case before the courts in Jersey (a tax haven in the Channel which in addition to having bank offices also has courts at the service of the vulture funds), in the Bahamas, Australia and South Africa. In South Africa the court ruled FG Hemisphere could seize payments for the export of electricity to South Africa by the DRC.
In a similar case concerning Peru, it was a Federal Tribunal sitting in California which ruled in favour of Elliott Associates in 2001 against the DRC (Red Mountain v.Democratic Republic of Congo) and prohibited the DRC from paying its other creditors their debt if they hadn't paid the sum demanded by Paul Singer. In 2002 Red Mountain received the sum. The $10 million of the original 'investment' had become $400 million when Elliott Associates finally released their prey.
At present more than a dozen African and other coutries are being attacked by vulture funds based in in tax havens for debts which often were incurred in the 1980's. Of the 50 cases pending 19 will be heard in London, 15 in New York and 2 in Paris. Poland, Ecuador, Ivory Coast, Panama.. are being attacked by vulture funds. The World Bank estimates that more than a third of the countries which have sought help in debt restructuring have been attacked by a flock (26) of vulture funds.
The attacked defend themselves.
To defend itself, the African Development Bank (ADB) offers immediate legal assistance- lawyers without frontiers- at a high level, placed at the service of the attacked states (African Legal Support Facility ALSF) open to all members of the ADB (77 states).
Ecuador has declared a part of its external debt illegitimate. After negotiations with its creditors it came to an agreement with respect to 91% of the Global 2012 and 2030 bonds with a discount of 65% of the face value.At the end of 2011 Ecuador created the Integrated Auditory Commission for Public Credit, to investigate external debt, both public and private, in order to detect possible manipulation by vulture funds.
Ecuador is using the tactics of attack learnt from the vulture funds against the assets of Chevron after the ruling of an Ecuadorian court which ordered the company to clean up a large area of the Amazon Basin polluted by its extraction activities. Since Chevron did not have any assets in Ecuador the litigants sought to seize the assets of the oil company in Argentina.
Initiatives to present a joint Latin American response to the neoliberal financial combine of which the vulture funds constitute a significant part are growing.
The long harassment of Argentina.
Emboldened by their successes the vulture funds began to attack on all fronts. They scented great opportunities for business after the Argentine debt crisis of 2001.
The Argentine process which ended in default is similar to the Spanish case. Bankruptcy is a political question. In this case the citizens opt not allow themselves to be squeezed further to pay illegitimate debt contracted behind their backs. In Argentina this happened in 2001. The Argentinians opted to put the rights of the Argentinians before the supposed rights of the markets. Argentina declared itself bankrupt at the end of 2001 after being prey to the attacks of the markets which had left 40% of the population in extreme poverty.
When the difference between Public Debt and GNP had reached 160% the vulture funds began to buy debt at rock-bottom prices. In 2003 bonds could be bought at between 10%-30% of their face value.
In the restructuring of 2005, extended in 2010, Argentina agreed with its creditors to exchange the bonds they held accepting a write-off of 75%. the agreement was reached with the holders of more than 92,4% of the bonds defaulted on in 2001. The Argentinian Congress passed the 'Lockout Law' by which only the bondholders who had participated in the exchange would be paid. The lockout was extended to the additional exchange in 2010 which applied to 92,4% of the total bonds.
A group of opportunist funds (EM of Kenneth Dart, NML of Elliott Associates, Aurelius...) who had acquired a considerable portfolio of old bonds tried to sabotage the exchange agreement and excluded themselves (hold outs). NML of Elliott Associates, began legal proceedings against Argentina in the courts of New York applying for the seizure of funds from the Argentine state. EM Ltd also began proceedings citing the pari passu clause (if a country pays its debts to the participants in a write-off proceeding, it is also obliged to pay the debts to those who had not agreed to the write-off) to sabotage the exchange agreements. These first free rider attacks (intended to block the restructuring as blackmail to receive payment) failed and the first exchange was finalised in 2005 with a 76,15% rate of adherence.
The vulture funds had betted heavily on Argentina (more than $3000 million) and were not about to release their prey. Since 2005 they have set about denigrating Argentina and litigating all over the world. Finally after costly lobbying campaigns and swarms of lawyers sifting through the jurisprudence archives, they managed to get a US judge, Thomas Griesa, to make a judgement favourable to the vultures following the pari passu dictamen which allowed them to block assets which Argentina held abroad.
In July 2011 the vulture funds tried to seize funds which the Argentinian government held in USA ($105 million deposited in the Federal Reserve). Against the immunity of deposits in such institutions in any part of the world they cited alter ego, that is to say the lack of independence of of the central bank in respect to the state (the Central Bank would be the alter ego of the state and therefore liable to embargo). The bet did not go the way they hoped given that the New York Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Argentina declaring that the funds in the Central Bank enjoyed immunity against embargo according to US sovereign immunity law of 1976.
Argentina has been obliged to move its public assets abroad to a place of safety (Bank of International Payments) out of the reach of the progressive attacks of the vulture fund
Switzerland refused a demand from the vulture funds in 2009 ( NML Capital a subsidiary of Elliott and EM Ltd of Ken Dart) to seize funds deposited in the Bank of International Payments (BIP). A decision of the Federal Tribunal concluded in July 2010 the impossibility of seizing these funds given the immunity enjoyed by the BIP. The vulture funds then directed their attention to the Federal Department of External Affairs which also ruled against them. Finally they went to the Federal Administrative Tribunal which transferred the case to the Federal Council which also ruled it was not competent to hear the case. In mid-October 2012 a court in Basel ratified the diplomatic immunity of the Argentine assets.
The British Supreme Court of Justice accepted the petition of of the vulture funds to present their demands before the British courts, rejecting the Argentinian argument that they were not competent to hear the case. This ruling opens the door to possible demands from the vulture funds for failure to pay public debt of the PIIGs and other peripheral European nations issued under British jurisdiction (and no-one accepts Greek debt that is not issued under British jurisdiction).
The vulture funds also attacked via Italy. The International Centre for Resolving Disputes Relative to Investments CIADI that controlled the Bilateral Investment Treaties between Argentina and Italy had been shown competent to hear the case given that the Argentine bonds in the hands of appellants are investments 'in Argentinian territory which favour the prosperity of the two contracting parties' (sic) and thus protected within the framework of the Agreement of CIADI.
The constant harassment which Argentina suffers is blackmail which translates into hundreds of basic points a year to the cost of the Argentinian tax-payers.
The harassment of Argentina came to the attention of the world media when the the vulture fund NML Capital, based in the Cayman Islands obtained a ruling from a judge in Ghana (where Repsol and Santander Bank operate) to retain the frigate Libertad in the port of Tema, some 25 kilometres east of Accra, to obtain the ransom demanded ($370 million). Another Argentine ship the corvette Espora, which was out of order in Cape Town with a mechanical problem would also be retained by NML Capital.
This was not merely a surprise attack by the vulture funds but a genuine plot which included the military, politicians and the media orchestrated to destabilise the government of Argentina. I recommend this article: Quienes son los cómplices argentinos de los fondos buitre?
USA: Ransoms, vultures and donations
The crisis is good for the vulture funds and the experience and money accumulated spurs them on to widen their field of operation.
Paul Singer (the largest donor to the Republican Party) and his associates are people without shame. The financial crisis of 2007-2008 represented an opportunity to attack the US tax-payer which the vultures could not resist.
Delphi Automotive was the principal supplier of components to the US automobile industry and employed 25 000 unionised workers. Previously it had been a subdivision of GM but it was separated from the parent company in 1999 in one of the typical subcontracting processes to reduce costs. In 2005, pressed by the low prices imposed by its clients, it declared itself bankrupt. In 2007, when the financial crisis began to manifest itself and problems in GM began to surface, Elliott Associates and John Paulson & Co bought Delphi's old debt at 20c to the dollar per bond. The vultures had picked up a strong scent of ransom.
The financial crisis dragged down the US automobile industry with it (whose financial departments were larger than their industrial ones).
In 2009, with the rescue negotiations well advanced, the vulture funds used their bonds to make up a share package for Delphi (0.67c per share) sufficient to control the society.
If Chrysler or GM were to be refloated it was necessary first to refloat Delphi Automotive.
In March 2009 the vulture funds, now owners of Delphi, demanded an advance of $350 million threatening that if the business were closed, GM and Chrysler would not receive the components to continue production thus threatening their viability.
The pension funds of Delphi sacrificed to add to the public rescue of the company. Nearly 21 000 pensioners who had retired from Delphi lost their medical insurance and suffered cuts of between 30% and 70% to their pensions. The government paid aid to Delphi to the value of $2 800 million under TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Programme), whilst GM (also rescued) wrote off the debt to the company ($2 500 million). On the other hand the government-owned Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation took over the Delphi Pensions ($5 6000 million). The total cost to the taxpayer was $12 900 million).
The vulture funds took advantage of their control of Delphi to shift most of the industrial plants to China (out of the 29 plants only 4 remained in the USA). 20 200 workers were fired. Those who retained their jobs were de-unionised.
Without costly pension plans and medical insurance, without the debts to GM or union payments, without taxes to pay (the Delphi offices were moved to Jersey in the Channel Islands) and with most of the plants moved to China, the value of Delphi shot up on the stock-exchange.
In November 2011, after the forced rescue, Delphi shares reached $22 (a profit of 3000%) and in 2012 they had climbed to $32 (the value of the company had gone from 0 to $10 000 million), which was a profit of some $4000 million to be shared between the vulture funds. Elliott Associates contributed $2,3 million dollars to Mitt Romney's campaign and John Paulson & Co a million.
Mitt Romney and his wife invested, via a blind trust at least a million dollars in Elliott Associates receiving a phenomenal $15,3 million after the publicly funded rescue.
Blind trusts allow anonymous financial investments to be made, even by serving politicians. Mitt claimed that he did not know what his vulture parter was doing.
Attempts to legislate against vulture funds
Attempts to legislate against vulture funds clash with the lobbying of the scavengers
France
France was one of the first countries which tried to legislate against the vulture funds. In August 2007 a bill was introduced in the French parliament the intention of which could not be clearer: 'lutter contre des fonds financiers dits “fonds vautours”.
The proposed law guaranteed the French judges discretion to refuse an order for payment of a debt to a sovereign debt creditor, taking into account to what extent that country had been assisted from public sources and also the ability to pay of the country in question. This discretion would affect rulings made in French courts as well as those made outside France. The proposed law was never debated in parliament.
USA
In June 2009 a draft law was placed before Congress. As in the French case the title could not be more explicit: Stop Vulture Funds Bill. The substance of the projected law if it had been passed would cut to the roots any speculation of this type. It would have limited the maximum amount obtainable by the creditors of sovereign debt to the amount they had paid for acquisition of the bonds.
The projected law was to have made sovereign debt profiteering an offence and proposed fines for infractions which would short-circuit attempts by the vulture funds to use the US legal system for its manoeuvres.
The proposed law was not even discussed by Congress.
Britain
In May 2009 a bill called the Developing Country Debt (Restriction of Recovery Bill) was put before the British parliament. It was a reaction to the deplorable looting of Zambia reported in the BBC. As in the case of the USA it limited the maximum amount allowed to be recovered by the creditor to the sum initially paid. It also required the vulture fund involved to declare payments made by them or their colleagues to the civil servants of the country in question. The city of London made sure that the project was never discussed.
In September 2010 another bill was presented, a considerably watered-down version of the first, which was debated in parliament and passed in April 2011. It was confined to a debt of list of poor countries the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative which had received assistance or debt cancellation. It was intended to prevent the Zambian scandal and was passed for a single year only (subject to renovation)
Belgium
The shameful attacks of the scavengers on its former colonies led to various initiatives because of they attracted the adverse public opinion of the country . At the beginning of 2008 a bill was introduced which was passed on 6 April. The text read: 'funds and assets destined for international co-operation as well as those destined for aid to developing countries cannot be seized' by vulture funds. Another revision covered loans made by Belgium to foreign countries or institutions. The timid law is only applicable in cases
The vulture funds circle above Europe
Europe will soon be scattered with corpses. Vulture funds proliferate in times of crisis and every day there are more of them.
Greece has already been attacked by Dart Management (Ken Dart's fund) which acquired Greek debt at a discount of 70-75% prior to the restructuring of April. 96,9% of the bondholders signed up to the debt swap which formed part of the second bailout. In May 2012 Dart Management pocketed 400 million Euros paid by the Greek government before the threat of legal proceedings by the vulture fund (they caught us at the worst moment admitted the Greek government).
New vulture funds are taking up position prior to a possible new Greek debt restructuring. There are some 6000 million Euros 'invested' in Greek debt issued under British jurisdiction, which means that, in the event of restructuring or write-offs, they cannot be forced to participate in the exchange.
There are flocks of vultures circling the sky over the old continent, biding their time until they descend upon the badly injured European economy
There are so many vultures that the demand for toxic assets exceeds the offer, considering that prices have not yet plummeted sufficiently to the taste of the scavengers.
The vulture funds which investors prefer to use are American, which although they do not know the European terrain, have the CV of those experienced in these struggles. The European vultures, on the other hand, know the terrain better but lack the experience and guts to prey on their own kind.
Where do the vulture funds buy debt? In England, Germany, Scandinavia, Switzerland and northern Europe. In this zone there is $O,7 billion in bad debt and it is an area with strict laws and codes on suspensions of payments, bankruptcy and debt restructuring (Greek debt issued under British jurisdiction is preferred to that issued under Greek legislation).
Apart from sovereign debt, vulture funds also take an interest in in the debt of companies with predictable cash flow over a long period of time which are absolutely necessary to bail out in case of bankruptcy (key banks, ports, motorways, peage tunnels, airports, energy companies, water supply, public transport, sewage... These areas are in the hands of the vulture funds and their expert litigators and specialists in dismembering companies to recuperate the face value of their bonds. This pushes up the contributions required of the tax-payer in the rescues which inevitably accompany restructuring.
The construction company Martin Fadesa, with 7000 million Euros of debt, became the first piece of Spanish carrion in 2008. The company declared itself bankrupt in June 2008. Vulture funds based in London, and acting in mutual agreement imposed draconian conditions on the restructuring of the company after acquiring a sizeable debt package at a discount of 50% after Morgan Stanley had disposed of some of its debt bonds. Whilst they received the face value of their investment after selling off the best assets of the construction company, the Spanish banks and other creditors (some of them assessed by Aznar) found themselves obliged to agree to not receive a cent until the end of a seven year waiting period.
The critical Spanish situation has got to the point that the Spanish government is asking for the participation of the vulture funds in the Bad Bank.. vulture funds, men in black..In the same as happened in South America a decade ago, the Spanish taxpayers are beginning to get used to the drunken party of the depression.
I hope that God catches us confessed.
El Congo Brazzaville, un país rico en materias primas petróleo, con una larga tradición de gobierno corruptos, debe grandes cantidades a inversores y bancos occidentales.
En 1996 Elliott Associates, a través de su filial Kensington International, adquirió por 10 millones de dólares de deuda soberana emitida en los años 1980s con un fuerte descuento.
En este caso el fondo buitre
atacó por el flanco. En lugar de apuntar a activos propiedad del Congo, se apoderó de royalties y tasas pagadas por empresas petroleras operando prospecciones en el Congo (39 millones de $).
El tribunal londinense aceptó la versión de Kensington International de que se trataba de "activos comerciales" puesto que el Congo los utilizó para pagar deuda comercial estadounidense y por tanto no ha lugar la inmunidad soberana que protegía los pagos efectuados por la RDC.
No contento con el resultado (pretende cobrar los 100 millones de nominal más intereses) , Elliott Associates se ha dedicado a
vilipendiar la corrupción imperante en el país. Paul Singer financia y dirige todo un staff de investigadores y periodistas cuya única misión es denunciar la supuesta o real corrupción de los que se resisten a pagar los rescates. Habituales clientes de los paraísos fiscales no tuvieron dificultad en "descubrir" una serie de cuentas bancarias ocultas bajo hombres de paja, relacionadas con el hijo del presidente y con la empresa estatal de petróleo SNCP.
Kensington International no se corta un pelo afirmando que "
las operaciones de los fondos buitre y sus denuncias han sacado a la luz los mecanismos por los que se desvía la riqueza extraída del país al exterior"
República del Congo
En los años 1980s la compañía yugoslava de ingeniería Energoinvest DD acordó con el Zaire la construcción de una planta de transmisión de electricidad en el Congo. El proyecto fue financiado por la misma Energoinvest DD que concedió un préstamo al Zaire y a la compañía estatal Societé Nationale d'Electricité. El préstamo (37 millones de dólares) no se devolvió. Finalmente el préstamo fue adquirido por el fondo FG Hemisphere (y otro fondo buitre que dirige Michael Sheehan) por el cual pagó 3,3 millones de dólares. Inmediatamente presentaron demandas en juzgados de mucho países exigiendo más de100 millones.
Una vez conseguidas sentencias favorables, se trataba de localizar activos de la República Democrática del Congo (RDC) para apropiárselos. Primero intentó apoderarse de unos activos que una compañía minera congoleña estatal tenía en Bélgica. En EEUU intentaron apoderarse de unas propiedades de la RDC en Washington DC.
La compañía estatal china China Railway Group participó en un acuerdo de joint venture con Gecamines, una compañía minera estatal de la RDC. El acuerdo incluía el pago de 221 millones de $ al gobierno del Congo por derechos de extracción.
Enterados de este acuerdo FG Hemisphere intentó interceptar un pago de 104 millones que una compañía estatal china debía hacer a la RDC en Hong Kong. El fondo buitre reclamó en dinero en la
corte de apelación de Hong Kong pero fracasó.
FG Hemisphere ha seguido litigando y llevó el caso a los tribunales de la Isla de Jersey (un paraíso fiscal en el canal de la Mancha donde además de oficinas bancarias hay tribunales al servicio de los fondos buitre), las Bahamas, Australia y Sudáfrica. En el caso de Sudáfrica un tribunal sentenció en 2008 que FG Hemisphere podía apoderarse de los pagos por exportación de electricidad a Sudáfrica por parte de la RDC.
La empresa congoleña Gecamines apeló contra el acoso del fondo buitre al
Privy Council de Londres que sentenció (julio de 2012) en favor de Gecamines.
En un caso parecido al de Perú, fue un tribunal federal con sede en California el que dictó a favor de Elliott Associates en 2001 contra la República Democrática del Congo. (Red Mountain vs. Democratic Republic of Congo) y prohibió que la RDC pagara a otros acreedores de su deuda en tanto no hubiera pagado el rescate exigido por Paul Singer. En 2002 Red Mountain cobró el rescate. Los 10 millones de dólares de “inversión” reportaron 400 millones a Elliott Associates cuando soltó por fin a la presa.
En la actualidad, más de una decena de países africanos y de otras zonas están siendo atacados por fondos buitre radicados en paraísos fiscales en base a deudas que a menudo se remontan a los años 80). De las cincuenta denuncias pendientes, diecinueve se presentaron en Londres, quince en Nueva York y dos en París. Polonia, Ecuador, Costa de Marfil, Panamá, … están siendo atacadas por fondos buitre. El Banco Mundial estima que más de 1/3 de los países que se han amparado en programas de reestructuración de deuda han sido atacados por un enjambre (26) de fondos buitre.
Los acosados de defienden
Para defenderse el
Banco Africano de Desarrollo (BAD) ofrece asistencia jurídica inmediata – abogados sin fronteras - de alto nivel puesta a la disposición de los estados atacados (African Legal Support Facility, ALSF) abierta a todos los miembros del BAD (77 estados).
Ecuador ha declarado como ilegítima parte de su deuda externa. Tras negociaciones con sus acreedores se llegó a un acuerdo respecto al 91% de los bonos Global 2012 y 2030 con un descuento del 65% del nominal. A finales de 2011 Ecuador creó una
Comisión de Auditoría Integral del Crédito Público (CAIC) para investigar la deuda externa nacional, tanto pública como privada, para detectar posibles manipulaciones de fondos buitre.
Ecuador está utilizando tácticas de acoso aprendidas de los fondos buitre sobre los bienes de
Chevron tras el fallo de un tribunal ecuatoriano que condenó a la petrolera a limpiar una amplia zona de la cuenca del amazonas polucionada por sus actividades extractoras. Como Chevron ya no tiene bienes en Ecuador, los litigantes se disponen a
embargar bienes de la petrolera en Argentina.
Están surgiendo iniciativas para dar una
respuesta latinoamericana de conjunto contra el combinado financiero neoliberal del cual los fondos buitre constituyen parte significativa.
El largo acoso contra Argentina
Envalentonados por los éxitos conseguidos los fondos buitre se atreven ya con todo. Husmearon grandes oportunidades de negocio tras la crisis de la deuda argentina de 2001.
El proceso argentino que llevó al default se parece mucho al caso español. La bancarrota es una cuestión política. Se trata de que los ciudadanos opten por no dejarse exprimir más para pagar deudas ilegítimas contratadas a sus espaldas. En Argentina, este fenómeno se produjo a finales de 2001. Los argentinos optaron por anteponer los derechos de los argentinos a los supuestos “derechos” de los mercados. Argentina se declaró en suspensión de pagos a finales de 2001 tras ser pasto de los ataques de los mercados que habían dejado en la pobreza extrema a más del 40% de la población.
Cuando la proporción entre la Deuda Pública y el PIB estaba ya en el 160% los fondos buitre empezaron a comprar deuda a precios de saldo. En 2003 los bonos se podían comprar entre un 10%-30% de su valor nominal.
En la reestructuración de 2005 ampliada en 2010, Argentina acordó con sus acreedores canjear sus bonos aceptando una quita o depreciación del 75%. El acuerdo se consiguió con los tenedores de más del 92,4% de los títulos del default de 2001. El congreso argentino votó en 2005 la "Ley Cerrojo" según la cual sólo se pagaría a los bonistas que participaron en el canje. El cerrojo se abrió para el canje adicional de 2010, con el que se llegó al 92,4% del total de bonos.
Un grupo de fondos oportunistas (EM Ltd. de
Kenneth Dart, NML de Elliott Associates, Aurelius, ...), se había hecho con una cartera considerable de títulos antiguos intentaron sabotear el acuerdo de canje y se autoexcluyeron (
hold outs). NML de Elliott Associates, inició dos acciones judiciales contra la Argentina ante los tribunales del estado de Nueva York solicitando el embargo de fondos del Estado argentino. EM Ltd., por su parte, también inició demandas judiciales abogando la cláusula “
pari passu” (si un país paga su deuda a los participantes en un acuerdo de quita, también debe pagar la deuda de los que no participan en ella) para sabotear el acuerdo de canje. Estos primeros ataques
free rider (bloquear la reestructuración como chantaje para obtener un rescate) fracasaron y el primer canje finalizó en 2005 con un nivel de adhesión del 76,15 %.
Los fondos buitre habían jugado fuerte contra Argentina (más de 3.000 millones de $) y no iban a soltar fácilmente su presa. Desde 2005 se han dedicado a
denigrar a Argentina y a presentar denuncias en juzgados de todo el mundo. Al final, tras costosas campañas de lobbying y bufetes enteros de abogados rebuscando en los archivos de la jurisprudencia, consiguieron que un juez de EEUU, el juez
Thomas Griesa, emitiera un
dictamen favorable a los carroñeros según la cláusula "
pari passu" que les permitía exigir el bloqueo de los activos que Argentina tiene en el exterior.
En julio de 2011, los fondos buitre intentaron apoderarse de los fondos que el banco central argentino tenía en EEUU (105 millones de dólares depositados en la Reserva Federal). Frente a la inmunidad de los depósitos de tales instituciones en cualquier parte del mundo alegaron la figura de "
alter ego", es decir, falta de independencia del banco central respecto al estado (El Banco Central sería el "
alter ego" del Estado y por tanto embargable). La jugada no les salió bien puesto que la Corte de Apelación de Nueva York falló a favor de Argentina declarando que los fondos del Banco Central tienen inmunidad frente a embargo según la ley norteamericana de inmunidad soberana de 1976.
Ante el progresivo
acoso carroñero Argentina se ha visto obligada a trasladar sus activos públicos en el exterior a un lugar seguro (Banco de Pagos Internacionales) fuera su alcance.
Suiza rechazó una demanda de 2009 de dos fondos buitre (NML Capital -filial de Elliott- y EM Ltd. de K. Dart) para
secuestrar fondos argentinos depositados en el Banco de Pagos Internacionales (BIP) Una decisión del Tribunal Federal concluyó en julio de 2010 la imposibilidad de secuestrar estos fondos debido a la inmunidad de la que se beneficia el BPI. Entonces, las dos sociedades se dirigieron al Departamento Federal de Asuntos Exteriores (DFAE), que también se opuso. Finalmente se dirigieron al Tribunal Administrativo Federal, pero este último no entró en materia y transmitió el caso al Consejo Federal que se mostró también incompetente para el caso. A mediados de octubre de 2012 un tribunal de Basilea ratificó la inmunidad diplomática de los activos argentinos.
La Corte Suprema de Justicia del Reino Unido aceptó la petición de los fondos buitre para que puedan presentar sus demandas ante la justicia británica, rechazando el argumento argentino de que los tribunales del Reino Unido no tenían competencia al respecto. Este fallo abre la puerta a posibles demandas por parte de carroñeros por impago de deuda pública de PIIGS y demás periféricos europeos, emitida bajo jurisdicción británica (ya nadie acepta deuda griega que no esté emitida bajo jurisdicción británica).
Los fondos buitre atacan también desde Italia. El
Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones (CIADI) que controla el Tratado Bilateral de Inversiones (TBI) entre Argentina e Italia, se ha mostrado competente considerando que los bonos argentinos en manos de los demandantes son inversiones “en territorio argentino que favorecen la prosperidad de las dos partes contratantes” (sic!) y por tanto protegidas en el marco del
Convenio del CIADI.
El acoso constante que sufre Argentina es un chantaje que se traduce en
centenares de puntos básicos por año en los mercados de capitales a costa de los contribuyentes argentinos.
El acoso a Argentina a llegado a todos los medios de comunicación cuando el fondo NML Capital, con sede en islas Caymán, logró un fallo de un juez de Ghana (donde operan Repsol y Banco de Santander) para retener la fragata de la marina Libertad en el puerto de Tema, unos 25 kilómetros al este de Accra, para obtener el rescate reclamado (370 millones de dólares). Otro buque argentino,
la corbeta Espora, varada en Ciudad del Cabo por un problema mecánico, podría ser también retenida por NML Capital.
Al parecer no se trata sólo de un ataque "sorpresa" por parte de fondos buitre sino de una verdadera trama que incumbe a militares, políticos y medios de comunicación, orquestada con el fin de desestabilizar el gobierno actual del país. Recomiendo este artículo:
¿Quienes son los cómplices argentinos de los fondos buitre?
EEUU: Rescates, buitres y donaciones
La crisis les sienta bien a los fondos buitre y la experiencia y el dinero acumulado les anima a ampliar su campo de actuación.
Paul Singer (el mayor donador de fondos para el partido republicano) y sus asociados son gente sin complejos. La crisis financiera de 2007-2008 representó una oportunidad para atacar a los mismísimos contribuyentes norteamericanos a la que no podían resistirse.
Delphi Automotive era la principal suministradora de componentes de la industria automovilística norteamericana y daba empleo a más de 25.000 empleados sindicados. Anteriormente era una subdivisión de GM pero fue desgajada de su matriz en 1999 en unos de estos típicos procesos de subcontratación para reducir costes. En 2005, presionada por los bajos precios impuestos por sus clientes, se declaró en bancarrota. En 2007, cuando la crisis financiera empezaba a manifestarse y empezaban a evidenciarse los problemas de GM, Elliot Associates y John Paulson & Co compraron la vieja deuda de Delphi a 20 centavos de dólar el bono. Los buitres husmeaban un fuerte tufillo a rescate.
Donaciones de Elliot Associates al partido republicano
La crisis financiera arrastró a la industria automovilística norteamericana (cuyos departamentos financieros eran más grandes que los industriales).
En 2009, avanzadas las negociaciones para el salvataje, los fondos buitres utilizaron sus bonos para hacerse con un paquete de acciones (0,67 centavo por acción) de Delphi suficiente como para controlar la sociedad.
Si se quería reflotar a Chrysler o a la General Motors era preciso reflotar antes a Delphi Automotive.
En marzo de 2009 los fondos buitre, propietarios de Delphi exigieron un adelanto al gobierno de 350 millones amenazando con que si cerraban la empresa GM y Chrysler no tendrían componentes para seguir produciendo impidiendo su viabilidad.
Los fondos de pensiones de Delphi fueron sacrificados para sumarse al rescate público de la empresa. Cerca de 21.000 pensionistas retirados de Delphi perdieron su seguro médico y sufrieron recortes de entre el 30 y el 70% de su pensión. El gobierno concedió ayudas a Delphi por valor de 2.800 millones del TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), mientras que GM (rescatada a su vez) condonaba lo adeudado por la empresa (2.500 millones). Por otra parte el gubernamental Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation tomó a su cargo las pensiones de Delphi (5.600 millones). Total coste para los contribuyentes: 12.900 millones de $.
Los fondos buitre aprovecharon el control de Delphi para deslocalizar la mayor parte de las plantas industriales a china. (de 29 plantas solo quedaron 4 en EEUU) 20.200 trabajadores despedidos. Los que conservaron el trabajo tuvieron que dejar de estar sindicados.
Sin los costosos planes de pensiones ni seguros médicos, sin las deudas a GM ni las contribuciones a los sindicatos, sin impuestos que pagar (las oficinas de Delphi se trasladaron a la Isla de Jersey, en el Canal de la Mancha) y con la mayoría de las plantas en China, el valor de Delphi se disparó en bolsa.
En noviembre de 2011, tras el rescate forzado, las acciones de Delphi cotizaban a 22$ (un beneficio del 3000%) y en 2012 han escaldo hasta los 32$ (el valor de la compañía habría pasado de 0 a 10.500 millones), lo cual representa una ganancia a repartir entre el sindicato de buitres de unos 4.000 millones de dólares. Elliot Associates ha contribuido con 2,3 millones a la campaña de Mitt Romney y John Paulson & Co. con un millón.
Mitt Romney y esposa invirtieron, vía un
blind trust, al menos 1 millón de $ en el fondo Elliot Associates sacando una fenomenal tajada de unos 15,3 millones tras la operación de rescate con fondos públicos.
Los
Blind Trusts (trust ciego) permiten hacer inversiones financieras, incluso a políticos en el oficio, sin conocimiento o control de los activos implicados. Mitt alega que no se enteró de lo que hacía su socio buitre.
Los Intentos de legislar contra los fondos buitre chocan contra el lobbying carroñero
Francia
Francia fue uno de los primeros países que intentaron legislar contra los fondos buitre.En agosto de 2007 se introdujo una propuesta de ley en el parlamento francés cuyo propósito no podía se más explícito: "
lutter contre l'action des fonds financiers dits "fonds vautours"
La propuesta le ley garantizaba al juez francés discrecionalidad para rechazar una orden de pago de una deuda a un acreedor de deuda soberana teniendo en cuenta en que medida tal país hubiera sido asistido por fuentes públicas y las posibilidades de pago del país en cuestión. Esta discrecionalidad afectaba tanto a sentencias emitidas en cortes de justicia francesas como a las provenientes del extranjero. La ley se quedó a las puertas del parlamento francés.
EEUU
En junio de 2009 se introdujo una propuesta de ley (
draft) al Congreso de los EEUU. Como en el caso francés, el título también no podía ser más explícito: "
Stop Vulture Funds Bill". En sustancia el proyecto de ley, de entrar en vigor, hubiera segado de raíz cualquier montaje especulativo de este tenor. Limitaba el máximo monto obtenible por los acreedores de deuda soberana a la cantidad que hubieran desembolsado para la adquisición de dichos bonos.
El proyecto de ley calificaba como delito el "
sovereign debt profiteering" (aprovecharse de mala fe de la deuda soberana) y prevehía multas para los infractores con lo cual cortocircuitaba cualquier intento por parte de fondos buitres de utilizar el sistema legal norteamericano para sus tejemanejes.
El proyecto de ley no fue ni siquiera discutido por el Congreso.
Inglaterra
En mayo de 2009 se presentó un proyecto de ley al parlamento inglés titulado "
Developing Coutry Debt (Restriction of Recovery) Bill". Era una respuesta al deplorable caso del expolio de Zambia, denunciado en la misma BBC. Como en el caso de los EEUU, limitaba el máximo recuperable por el acreedor a la suma pagada inicialmente por este. También requería que el fondo buitre declarara los pagos o regalos efectuados por ellos o sus colegas a los funcionarios de los gobiernos implicados. La City de Londres se encargó de que el proyecto ni se discutiera.
En septiembre de 2010 se presentó otro proyecto de ley, mucho más tímido que el anterior, que sí fue discutido por el parlamento y convertido en ley en abril de 2011. Afectaría a la deuda de una restringida lista de países pobres "
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative" que hubieran recibido ayudas o cancelaciones de deuda. Se trataba de evitar el escándalo de Zambia y fue aprobado para un solo año (susceptible de renovación)
Bélgica
Frente a la desvergüenza del ataque carroñero a las antiguas colonias del país se produjeron diversas iniciativas por el malestar de la opinión pública del país. A principios de 2008 se introdujo un proyecto de ley que fue adoptado el 6 de abril de 2008. Decía textualmente que "los fondos y activos destinados a la cooperación internacional así como los destinados a ayuda al desarrollo o provenientes de la cooperación internacional, no pueden ser embargados" por los fondos buitre. Otra revisión cubría los préstamos hechos por Bélgica a países o instituciones extranjeras. La tímida ley solamente es aplicable a casos introducidos tras la aprobación de la misma.
Los FB sobrevuelan Europa
Europa va ha estar pronto sembrada de cadáveres. La especie fondos buitre está proliferando en tiempos de crisis y cada vez son más.
Grecia ya ha sido atacada por Dart Management (el fondo de Ken Dart) que adquirió deuda griega con un descuento del 70-75% antes de la reestructuración de abril de 2012. Al canje, vinculado al segundo plan de rescate, se apuntaron el
96,9% de los tenedores. En mayo de 2012 Dart Management se embolsó unos 400 millones de euros pagados por el gobierno griego ante la amenaza de procedimientos judiciales por parte del fondo buitre (nos pillaron en el peor momento, reconoce el gobierno griego).
Nuevos fondos buitre están tomando posiciones ante una posible nueva reestructuración de la deuda griega. Unos 6.000 millones de euros "invertidos" en deuda griega emitida bajo jurisdicción anglosajona, lo cual implica que, en caso de reestructuración o quita, no pueden ser forzados a participar en el canje.
Son ya tantos los que ensombrecen el cielo de viejo continente que parece reinar una especie de compás de espera hasta que se abalancen sobre la malherida economía europea.
Fondos buitre esperando que se desplomen los PIIGS
Hay tantos buitres que la demanda de activos tóxicos supera la oferta por lo que los precios aún no se han desplomado al gusto de los depredadores.
Los fondos buitres preferidos por los inversores son los norteamericanos que, aunque no conocen el terreno europeo, lucen currículum de gente experimentada en estas lides. Los buitres europeos, en cambio, conocen mejor el terreno pero les falta experiencia y agallas para despedazar a sus propios congéneres.
¿Donde compran deuda los fondos buitre? En Inglaterra, Alemania, Escandinavia, Suiza y el Norte de Europa. En esta zona hay 0,7 billones en deuda mala y es una zona con estrictas leyes y códigos sobre suspensiones de pagos, bancarrotas y reestructuraciones de deuda (en el caso griego, se prefiere la deuda emitida bajo legislación anglosajona que la emitida bajo legislación griega).
A parte de la deuda soberana los fondos buitre se interesan también por la deuda de empresas con predecible cash flow sobre largos períodos de tiempo y que exigirán rescates, si o si, en caso de suspensión de pagos (bancos sistémicos, puertos, autopista y túneles de peaje, aeropuertos, empresas de energía, suministro de agua, transporte público, alcantarillado, ... Estas participaciones en manos de los fondos buitre y sus expertos litigantes y especialistas en despedazamiento de empresas para recuperar el nominal de sus bonos, encarecerán las aportaciones que deban hacer los contribuyentes en los rescates que se avecinan
.
La constructora
Martin Fadesa, con 7000 millones de euros de deuda, se convirtió en la primera pieza de caza española en 2008. La empresa se declaró en concurso de acreedores (suspensión de pagos) en junio de 2008. Fondos buitre con base en Londres, y actuando de mutuo acuerdo, impusieron condiciones draconianas a la reestructuración de la empresa tras hacerse con un importante paquete de su deuda descontado en más del 50% después que Morgan Stanley se deshiciese de parte de sus bonos de deuda. Mientras ellos cobraban el nominal de su inversión tras la puesta en venta de los mejores activos de la constructora, las cajas españoles y demás acreedores (
algunos asesorados por Aznar) se vieron obligadas a
aceptar no recobrar un duro hasta pasados 7 años.
La situación crítica española ha llevado a que el gobierno solicite la entrada de
fondos buitre en el Banco Malo español.
Banco Malo, fondos buitre, hombres de negro, ... Como ocurriera en latinoamérica hace una década, los contribuyentes españoles empiezan también a habituarse a la jerga de la depresión.
Que Dios nos pille confesados.
Más información:
Patrick Wautelet (University of Liège): Vulture funds, creditors and sovereign debtors: how to find a balance?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/14/vulture-funds-encourage-bankruptcies • Elena Moya • guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 14 January 2009 21.22 GMT
