agreeable to me and we will proceed if you make sure identify who exactly you are and who home you represent instrument and term type had well it breaks the debt into subcategories subcategory five subtotal debt not submitted to the exchange ok everyone agrees this is a page fourteen of argentina's brief in the bison b case that the bonds at issue in this case are within that category if you look then up the page two roman two you have total government debt three plus four plus five total government debt according to argentina the end of september two thousand and seventeen includes these bonds not just the principal but the interest all of the interest that has accrued through the date of this statement in response to ignore the twelve years of history where argentina said we're not going to yes your honor for purposes of the statute of limitations of the rule in new york is if you have a writing one writing in which the defendant either promises to pay or acknowledges a debt and you have any new york case in which something of this sort a balance well be considered as contingent liabilities because matters are under litigation etc extends that limitation well your let's be clear this cannot be considered contingent there is no reference on this page to any dispute or contingency instead they say this is part of the total government debt period full stop do i have cases yes chase manhattan bank it's a st department decision page thirteen of our opening brief bank odo brazil same page you are opening brief st apartment two thousand evidence like twelve years in various statutes passed by the republic of argentina saying we're not paying any of us well your honor i have to assume that in every case something like that exists either why do you assume that because you wouldn't have litigation otherwise the reason that there is litigation is someone is disputing the debt now they're making a statute of limitations argument as well and the court says well that's the only issue on statute of limitations is is it a live claim or is it a stale claim the question is it's live under the new york law if they have acknowledged it but to come to your contextual question your honor we did have this twelve years of history we're all weary of it frankly and i think your honor sat on at least one of the panels of two thousand and sixteen but the fact of the matter is everyone on this court who doesn't own some of these bonds or have other reason to be disqualified has sat on one or more cases arising out of this default you know it well you i've been waiting three years for a decision in one case that was argued three years ago in november but a different panel sorry are you sure to let us know about that ok we we will do thank you guys no it wasn't your honor that decision came down very quickly and in that decision your honor that your panel wrote you were not deciding the question of the bonds you didn't settle they might proceed to negotiate or in this case  effectively predicted what's happening this morning but but my point was that you talked of two you mentioned twelve years of history well in two thousand and sixteen at the time that your honor and your colleagues rules just in history which is we are not hang the bonds according to their terms it's not right it's partially right it's right through to finally song about that because in two thousand and sixteen argentina abrogated those law clause that's page three hundred and sixty nine of our appendix the world changed and they started in two thousand and ten they started announcing a different kind of financial statement of which page five hundred and forty is an example they acknowledge the debt in this case was dismissed below on a statute of limitations claim maybe they want to fight us on the merits but the claim is a live claim i have if i can press on to the perry pursue claim i see that i'm the red lights on but our head thank you roger there we made a really simple argument we may all of the facts which had given rise to an external leg claim were facts not all of them but many of them that all that had happened since two thousand and twelve were within anybody's view of the statute of limitations and had resulted in the same result to us but if i can focus the court's attention on something new about this case which is the internal lake what what we said was that in the settlement in two thousand and sixteen argentina had taken its fiscal agency agreement bonds all of which contained the promise that all of the bonds would be treated perry passed to one without any preference among them and it had created preferences if you have a lawsuit you get one settlement if you have a lawsuit or an injunction you get another settlement if you don't have any of that you get nothing they created broad preferences which violated the internal leg that was only two years ago or two years before we found the complaint and we have the simple as kind of contract claim that says we have the expectation measure of damages if you promise that all the bonds within this boat would sink or swim together you've broken that promise two years ago we're entitled to a damage claim what is really  lifting the injunction your honor the trade in a really is which you affirmed was that those parties which had injunctions had to be paid as consideration for the court lifting the injunction but you specifically said in a really i think it's at page page one a weight of six hundred and forty four dollars federal appendix individual bond holders who have not settled are free to continue litigating negotiating nothing that we are doing and strings their rights so that nothing about or really affects the outcome of this case if the if there are i'm over my eleven the only issues that have been raised is whether the term any person encompasses governmental agency and or sovereign and we now have a court of appeals law that says the term any person changes the meaning of the word person and the supreme court even recognized this recently saying that when you add the word any to the word person then the definition of person that normally would exclude a sovereign no longer applies that's an issue that is settled and to continue arguing and to say that in the face of decisions from the district court saying that the word person and and in the interim a lot of different things happen including what has happened here which is there were bomb there were bans on and bars on people being able to collect on these bonds and therefore the state york wanted to be able to pay them so yes that was the impetus but the statute was not at all limited to state of new york and the fact that it lists the state of new york you know any person in the state of new york and public and private corporations doesn't limit it any more than the fact that it excludes a long list of different types of regulated industries and doesn't exclude sovereigns there i think in terms of that argument it's really a wash they didn't include it but they didn't exclude it when they have lists of both of them so i think that the argument that it applies to a government is certainly settled in our favor the nd issue that's raised is whether these were advertised in a newspaper of general circulation so the argument comes down to is the bulletin considered an argentine i asked the court to take a very literal view and say it has to be advertise for bids to underwriters and if it's advertised for bids to the direct purchaser that doesn't qualify now i'm not sure why that should be because the statute is not designed to protect underwriters it's designed to protect the bond buyer so the real reason for the advertisement is so that there's no dispute as to the terms because they're advertised in a newspaper of general circulation or in something that's available to everybody and no but the federal register doesn't include ads which the politician if you look page sixty six dollars of the joint appendix and scattered from eight the underwriter and where they can be purchased if you just know the pages i'm talking about is general ads just to distinguish it from the federal register but they're not selling bonds right now but what they way way argentina argued was that the boateng is like the federal register because it doesn't have ads but it does have that it's not like the federal register i've never looked and seen an ad for anything in the federal register whether it's attorneys  if i may then move on to the issue of the toll what we're dealing with here is a country that passed a law that didn't just say we're not going to pay they said it is illegal to make this payment and that bar has been used by argentina repeatedly to avoid its obligations on the judgments that's exactly what the new york court of appeals has recognized can create a tol and the fact that we could not say that it was due and payable which is what the cases require is is the bar people could plead it which is exactly what the toll situations raise with the courts  of yeah you could come in and say you know i filed a notice of claim even though i didn't there's nothing to stop you but we don't want to encourage that so here well argentina says that it doesn't require that it be payable as long as liabilities established that was actually rejected by the court of appeals in the phoenix case where that was the argument made by the defendant that was liability  established and it's a page we see which one is a new page one hundred and forty four and that was enough to trigger the statute and the court of appeal said no because it wasn't payable at that point so  may be due but if we haven't transferred the money they're not payable so it is a significant term which we could not actually plead during the time that these statutes were in effect the fact that other people depleted and obtain judgment doesn't court of appeals has recognized repeatedly a toll is proper the defendant knows the claim knows that the claims are coming knows the details it's not affected by the delay and that's exactly what we have here they know to the the is the matter of argentine bombs well considering that in two thousand and sixteen they made a promise that they're going to pay everybody one hundred percent of our creditors and that was put in writing by counsel and i didn't see any other clients believe that our clients believe that thank you very sympathetic and lawyers need to be page or honor this family so just just to start i think it will be easiest to run through the issues as counsel ran through the issues on their side and to start with the categories up at the top it lists out debt at normal payment status and then two dollars lines below separate from the category of debt that is at normal payment status you have the category debt not submitted for exchange which we all exchange there's a reference there to decrees and those two decrees are the decrees that authorized the two exchange offers that occurred to make very clear that this debt their debt needs to be restructured in other bars if you go down the dark bars have little roman numerals that the far left so go down below about hat below about halfway down the page a little below that there's a roman five right and it's a subtotal debt not submitted to the exchange think you would need to refer to those statutes and that would spell out what what is the status subject to but in the same document which is where i start if you then flip two pages in the appendix five  user of the document would be able to infer from reference that's the normal citation for a decree and if you google it you find it's available on the internet it's in the district court records though i don't think it's was before the court  motion to dismiss but of course this record was aware of all this history and the exchange offers in the exchange offers you saying these are the very decrees statutes the plaintiffs in effect or relying on to say this that wasn't payable during all of degrees essentially these are the decrees that prohibit payment of these very much yes because they only contemplate that these bonds are going to exchangeable essentially and if there's any further doubt they really couldn't be later on in this document and  we there's a site just want to give you for the bond at normal payment status if you go to a five hundred and three to five dollars to three dollars so it's twenty pages you don't have to slog through it now but i will represent to the core i don't think there's any debate that those pages are projections of payments for the bonds at normal payment status which of course will include the plane to spawn's and all this goes to the requirement under the statute and as interpreted by the new york court of appeal since one thousand to the connecticut trust case which says you can have nothing inconsistent with an intent to pay and that essentially means an attempt to pay the bonds according to their terms and importantly because plaintiffs make this argument in their brief and they say will acknowledge manages saying i recognize the debt exists that is not correct the connecticut trust case explicitly says that if all you're doing is identifying the debt that's not enough you need to show an intent to pay it or at the very least nothing inconsistent with payment on the bonds and so the plain text of this document the quarterly report refutes that and i would also the the other reference that  you and doesn't say we're not going to pay then that kind of a stops them from coming back later and relying on the statute of limitations if the creditor was lol by that into not filing suit i  think that's exactly right your honor and certainly no one can claim here that there was any loving going on by argentina and i think that also dovetails with the cases that my adversary cited when you asked the question is it enough just to list a docu on a financial statement and in fact we cite the black letter law from cases on twenty of our brief and i think that's the by some be brief because we have a brief in each action that as a general rule quote financial statements alone are insufficient to restart the statute of limitations that's the more case we say diski addus case the mere fact a debt was carried on the defendants books would not in and of itself constitute the required acknowledgment and the national westminster bank case as well all go to the fact that listing of the debt which of course were not were not in that land right were in the land of you've listed it and you've made it clear it's a separate category of debt different from normal payment status and subject to these decrees so i think the acknowledg principle has been paid principal is never paid therefore i still have this floating interest claim i can i can bring the court of appeals on certification from this court rejected that this court when when it came back from the court of appeals said if you have no right to the principle you can't then claim to contractual interest rate they fall together here the parent has to claim is about the payment obligations so if you have no right your time barred on your payment obligations you can't say well there is a perry pursue of the parent has who clause and so he's asking this court to accept that when this court vacated these injunctions and found that the parent disciplines no longer being violated in fact it was allowing to proceed a violation the parent passing on the basis of the injunction factors not on the issue of law when perry pounced to cause was violence right you were on the injunction factors your honor but that that considered what you had before it but if we want to go to the merits the two thousand and twelve decision by this cor people saying i have been claims and they settle the matter discount and the court said specifically because a repurchase is essentially the purchase of a bond at a premium or discount that doesn't violate the clause so that's number one and number two that is read by this quarter understood by this court is legally subordinating some class of debt that in the court the court in two thousand and twelve said other conduct which they found to be extraordinary recalcitrant is in refusing to treat the debt as in line with other classes of debt that is what these cases say is a violation the parapets who isn't that what they're arguing in effect well but they're not they don't they're not pointing to a lot of any less i think for some people the math might work in such a way that it could slip but by and large yes the standard offer was less than than the and then argos who didn't accept the approach to offer got one they are still they're still out there they're still being discus other classes of people the problem here is that if these people had sued if these plaintiffs had sued that in the day when other people sued they would get treated exactly the same resolved now the vast majority of everything we're down to being that makes them different is precisely the fact that they did not sue and let their client claims lapse in your view that the is in default and then ultimately is ordered by a court to pay or in the course of litigation arrives at a subtle moment with the people who sued them would not be able to assert a statue limitations claim against people who didn't sue them and that's basically what they're arguing as it was basically step strip us of a statue of limitations defense and bond documentation that says it's governed by new york law and provide for jurisdiction in new york courts where of course in new york such limitations would apply and i don't i don't even think you could give up your statue of limitations defense ex ante i think that's contrary to public policy in new york you certainly can't lengthen it by agreement ex ante so nothing on their non time bar claims because for two thousand and sixteen interest payment that was missed they have a timely claim to principal and interest so what they want to bring this theory in is because they say they want to now build the bridge too far and say and we say in our brief doesn't even exist as a con as a as a as a claim because really they're just talking about and creating their their claim for damages for mis principal and interest and under their theory  under their theory every time someone else gets paid that means they have a new damages claim that repeats from two thousand to two thousand and four it just keeps reopening there's no basis in law for that so it was a matter of the merits i don't think they stand a claim for breach of the this court's decision on what that clause means foursquare knocks that out but then on the stache limitations point it just doesn't help them at all get what they're really wanting to get which is interest payments from two thousand and two in a lawsuit that they really is this court said that those laws explicitly prohibited payment to bondholders so again that undercuts that those are somehow acknowledgment so it's relevant for there we cite that and that discussion of the it's also relevant because we think that while it was under the injunction standard the fact that this court allowed to proceed to settlements under the under the proposed and that they were settlements and it talks about settling as opposed to you know paying the t that we let go forward and as our basis for vacating the injunctions let me ask you a question which is somewhat in the nature of inside baseball the citation to really use in  trouble with our being able to proclaim that we can stuff these things down the memory hole that we decide a case one day in favor of one party and then if an absolutely indistinguishable case comes along later there's no presidential effect to the it so we'll hear from them in due course ok thank you very much i just finished it just quickly because there are two other points on the twenty year statute of limitation i've given you extra time book or give you another sixty seconds were ok look that statute that has  utterly contrary to the legislative history which is clear they want to make new york aunts competitive and so by giving a longer statue limitations to any kind of state issue debt that would undercut that and finally if you said person in that statute  s any natural or unnatural person why would why would it undercut it because that would mean that any bond issued by any state because now they say a person is anything would now be subject to the twenty year stash limitations whereas  in the legislative history they talk about well now we're six new york we want to go to twenty for the new york that ohio's fifteen other state is under some are twenty and so now it's everybody's twenty where they want to have an edge which political objectives of the new york senator correct correct plus also if you say a person is natural or unnatural person then why do they list public or private corporations and there's another category as well so two hundred and eleven dollars doesn't know new yorkers are new york or or new york legislation saying this case can't proceed we don't have that here what argentina did with their lock lock cetera was a starting gun for people to go to court it wasn't anything that kept people from getting into court thank you  refers to payment obligations and it does on the external leg but not on the internal like what the internal exec as is that the securities will will be held without preference among them the bonds and this comes judgment to your point this can't go on forever under the internal leg because there can only ever be a claim when argentina is treating other fiscal agency agreement by them so i'm still having  saying in effect that if one of them sues and ultimately the debtor settles the lawsuit and the other one doesn't until after the statue of limitations has run the debtor is arises when we have the unusual contractual right as we do here of saying we're all in the same boat as fiscal agency agreement bonds if you treat one of us in one way you can't classify as differently than others you can't classify as differently because one sued timely and the other didn't or for any other reason that's what it says it says all of the securities will be held perry passed sue and without preference the extra leg but it's parallel language it prohibits argentina as bond pay you are from paying on other bonds without paying on the f a a bonds close quote that how do you reconcile those they can make discre strategic one off purchases in the marketplace what they can't do is come and say we're going to have a global settlement offer that's available to some of the people in the boat but not the other people in the boat and the other the other point that's important to emphasize is that i think my friend is really arguing a point about the perry pass who clause that judge parker expressly rejected it is not a promise that only applies to form ordination in plain words he rejected that any sort of functional the ranking which paying one stripe and not paying another is is a violation as as he held in and m l one and that's what's happened here now for the st time with regard to the internal leg that was triggered by the two thousand and sixteen events and again there's nothing wrong with the settlement in two thousand and sixteen what's wrong in two thousand and sixteen is that they don't offer the settlement to other bonds in the same boat with the same contractual right as the bonds that settled because they didn't sue would it be the same if instead of settling the court ordered to pay be different you don't need to reach that but i think it wouldn't be any different i think i think that for one thing in debt cases courts don't typically order people to make payments what they do is they say we're not going to release th to pay no no they and your honor i disagree they entered a judgment saying we're not releasing this injunction unless you pay and because they had to release the injunction in order to effect us case that's not my hypothetical my understands you know on the debt i  a straight sort of that i just get a judgment and i have to go in force of some of the court doesn't order the other side to pay you know contempt power in court if somebody it's no use intent it was just a it's a decision that the judgment is oh did i mean let's i have some specific performance right which would be unusual in a death case you know if i can quickly touch on acknowledge why my friend raise it is very hard to see two references to document numbers that appear on page five hundred and forty and it's no harder to see them online that you're relying on the same line with as we need the same glasses the same contrast in color to read it you're relying on the part that says roman v and some words they're relying on the part in parentheses after they're equally hard to see there are enough if you're out of the point the point is taken but those references are not to lock laws they are to decrees offering the option of an exchange and to come to your honor's point earlier about the twelve years the world has changed in two thousand and seventy those decree to the extent mr bowker if he says well the inference from those exchanges is that they're not going to pay bonds because there were locked laws then they don't exchange ok what's changed in two thousand and seventy the lock laws are abrogated there's no more inference and all those bonds that had not tendered in four and in ten o five i should say they've all been paid now in two thousand and sixteen so so by the time we get to this this acknowledgement of debt argentina has changed its view about the world as a different government it's approaching things in a different way and it's approaching things in the same way these guys is not well in this litigation but what it's telling the world which is the only way you can communicate with your bondholders is that this is part of its debt and i'd leave the court with one question if if they were really not acknowledging this debt why did they calculate the interest to the penny to the date of that it's due it's all in here and incorporated in their debt this only if there's any question about that  the district court to sort out the arguments were making would be appropriate but we think there's a clear showing here that beats the statute of limitations  and eleven and argentina's argument now that this was really a law that was passed only to benefit the state of new york and they didn't want to can create any competitive edge to any other sovereign or any other country i would just note that in passing in the vigilant case which we've cited for different propositions about when bonds become due and payable the bond issue there that issue there were issued by a municipality in texas and the court of appeal say well this would qualify for a twenty year statute of limitations except it's not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the united states of america whatever they said other than that is dictum it is dictum but i'm just pointing out that the idea that this was a provincial statute that was only intended to i would also point out with regard to the toll that argentina now argues well the toll would only apply if it was a new york statute that said for example new york state were to pass a law that we're not going to pay any judgments because we want to save some money for a few years again when we get around to it which which is what the statute said it's not that we're refusing to pay it's that it's illegal to pay but that issue i would just point out is very much related to the issue that this court just referred to the court of appeals in schabas where the issue of whether new york the new york courts would recognize a cross during cross jurisdictional toll where american pipe toll was created by a class punitive class action in texas a class action was dismissed and the issue was whether the southern district was required to recognize the toll and that was just accepted by the court of appeals last week or two weeks ago no briefs have been filed that hasn't been scheduled for argument but the extent that this court feels a concern as to whether or not new york wrong i mean i knew about it because i was asked to do and i am because in the case once he raised the issue i remember the case you suggest mr because he's never made that argument before i have not seen it in the  i may have overlooked it but i didn't see it in the brief if i may just on the acknowledgement issue i just wanted to point out the inconsistent positions being taken here mr because he says that the reference to t provisions by code number well you know anybody who wants to can go google it and find it and find the regulation and know what the terms were know what they're included or not and then at the same time he says oh but these were not hand delivered to each point of individual way they were just put out in the public where people could see it well that's where creditors are going to look if i have an argentina bond i'm going to look at the quarterly statements and they're going to be communicating to me at a minimum whether those were actually communicated to the bondholders is an issue of fact we have cases cited a page thirty five dollars look to see if you're going to get paid if i'm not getting an individual statement mailed to me then i would look online for the statements just as i would look on google to see what that reference means which is what they're contending that people would do thank you if you since your argument is good part of the question you have an opportunity to respond to  default under twelve d of the f a a so rather than blocking anyone from going to core it further crystallized any event of the fall that they wanted to a sort of course people started to sue the minute we defaulted in two thousand and one but my my point was simply that the argentine law didn't stop anyone from going to court the cases they cite i think in some page twenty three or so of the reply brief all involve new york laws or ordinances or court orders that say mr smith you can't go to court right now and so logically when mr smith gets to go to court date and count that time against him you are statute into anything like that in fact did the opposite people have basis and something to complain about for reserve