Abstract
The pari passu saga isn’t about the pari passu clause. A year on from Argentina’s first defeat in a US appeals court, it has become a wider debate about ‘recalcitrant’ sovereign debtors, broad use of courts’ powers of equity in bond contract cases, and ratable payment itself. A recent copycat pari passu lawsuit against Grenada demonstrates these points well — testing the limits of ‘recalcitrance’, but still not finding firm answers. This provokes one or two questions. Was the pari passu ‘cause’ actually worth it? Despite its apparent success for pre-judgment holdouts, litigation is likely to remain lengthy and tangled up with negotiation. Will it be more useful for post-judgment creditors to instead use to sue everyone? And will ‘fixing’ the saga simply be a matter of redrafting the clause?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
