By Rodrigo Campos
NEW YORK (Reuters) – New York State lawmakers return from a two-week break on Monday with a month left to decide the fate of a controversial bill that aims to streamline sovereign debt restructurings, with hundreds of billions of dollars in bond contracts on the line.
Below are facts about the proposal and potential ramifications.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
Unlike corporations or individuals, countries cannot declare bankruptcy and the current process of a debt restructuring can be costly both in time and money. The proposed bill looks to “provide effective mechanisms for restructuring sovereign and subnational debt” and the rewrite of this state law would retroactively affect sovereign debt contracts and its holders across the world.
A stronger, yet simpler international architecture for restructurings is needed, proof of which are attempts put together over the past decades by various stakeholders, most recently the Group of 20’s Common Framework for Debt Treatments. The International Monetary Fund recently endorsed a key reform to promote its own “capacity to support countries undertaking debt restructurings.”
The bill was repeatedly discussed during last month’s meetings of the IMF and World Bank, with some stakeholders concerned about the implications of its eventual passage.
THE BILL’S INTENT
The bill aims to strengthen “the role of New York State as a primary location for the issuing and trading of sovereign debt.” It also looks to discourage creditor holdouts – sometimes called vulture funds – by limiting their protection in state courts.
If enacted, it would empower countries eligible for debt relief initiatives to opt between a set mechanism for restructuring or a process that would limit bondholders’ claims to those the United States would receive if it were a bilateral lender.
“Low- and middle-income countries are facing unimaginable financial burdens, which are made worse by holdout creditors’ continued abuse of New York state laws,” said Ben Grossman-Cohen, director of campaigns at Oxfam America, an advocacy group championing the bill. “It is long past time for the state legislature to take action.”
THE CONTROVERSY
While proponents and their backers see the bill as a straightforward way to skirt the complications of debt restructurings, its detractors say unintended consequences will make it even costlier for poor countries to borrow.
“The intention behind the bill is not a bad one, but the implementation probably doesn’t take into consideration the full ramifications,” said Trang Nguyen, the London-based global head of emerging markets credit strategy at BNP Paribas. She said upending the sovereign debt architecture without the input of the IMF, the Paris Club and others could be “quite detrimental.”
Nguyen, who said the bill was discussed “ad nauseam” during the April IMF meetings in Washington, conceded there are flaws with the current architecture but said a bill imposed over all stakeholders would not be beneficial to debtor countries.
The bill could also trigger legal challenges and lead to the migration of sovereign debt away from New York to other jurisdictions according to law firm Cleary Gottlieb, which has advised both sovereigns and creditors in debt restructurings.
WHAT IS NEXT FOR THE BILL
The bill’s eventual passage this year would have to happen over the remaining 18 sessions before the legislature closes on June 6.
It needs to be discussed and voted on in committees, smaller groups of lawmakers in both the State Senate and Assembly. If passed, it would be separately discussed and voted by the full chambers. Again, depending on approval, the bill is sent to the governor who can sign or veto. A veto can be overturned by a two-thirds majority in both houses. Democrats hold such majorities, with both chambers up for elections on Nov. 5.
(Reporting by Rodrigo Campos; Editing by Jacqueline Wong)
Comments