For years, the international legal community has speculated about whether and to what extent the trio of investment disputes arising out of Argentina’s 2001 sovereign bond default— Abaclat v Argentine Republic , 3Ambiente Ufficio v Argentine Republic , 4 and Alemanni v Argentine Republic5— would or should be consistent with one another as a matter of both substance and procedure. Interest in the cases intensified in August 2011, when the tribunal in Abaclat allowed approximately 60,000 Italian claimants to proceed jointly against Argentina. 6 Although no decision has yet been rendered in Alemanni , the Tribunal in Ambiente Ufficio recently issued a decision on jurisdiction and admissibility as well as a dissenting opinion. Not surprisingly, both the Majority and the Dissent drew heavily on Abaclat , although some disagreement arose as to the propriety of doing so. On the one hand, the Majority believed that a...