A footnote to Mark's recent post on Argentina's remaining options got me thinking about what an Event of Default actually is under the exchange bond indenture. From a reasonably quick look at the (lengthy) documents, I think there might be a non-default route open to Argentina, and possibly also a procedural route to getting the pari passu clause interpretation in front of a New York State court. The exchange bond indenture para. 3.1 obligates the Republic to pay principal and interest "to the Trustee". The Republic is not obligated to pay the bondholders directly. That's the trustee's duty, if it is paid by the Republic, although the Republic has the option of directly paying the bondholders. Now, there is language in the Prospectus Supplement (page S-67) that:However, when one looks at the Indenture , this language appears only in the form of the debt security itself (exhibit C-2), not in the actual Indenture. The context of the language makes clear that it is an anti-mailbox rule provision making the obligation discharged upon receipt, not mailing because the preceding sentence explains that Argentina has the option of either paying the trustee or paying the registered noteholders directly. The "shall not have been satisfied" language immediately follows the direct payment option, which indicates that its purpose is to prevent Argentina from claiming that its obligation was discharged by putting the check in the mail. The "shall not have been satisfied" language does not apply when Argentina pays the trustee itself, which is the obligation in paragraph 3.1 of the Indenture.

the Trustee will not be liable to any person if prevented or delayed in performing any of its obligations or discretionary functions under this Indenture by reason of any present or future law applicable to it, by any governmental or regulatory authority or by any circumstances beyond its control;

So let's say I'm right here (and I think I am). If so, then if the Republic tenders payment to Bank of New York Mellon as the indenture trustee, then the Republic has fulfilled its obligation, and there's no event of default possible under the indenture (the EOD only occurs 30 days after failure to pay anyhow). At this point, I think the problem becomes Bank of New York Mellon's. Because of Judge Griesa's injunction, Bank of New York Mellon might refuse to accept payment from Argentina. Or BNYM might accept payment, but refuse to distribute it (more likely the former). Either course of action raises potential liability for Bank of New York Mellon to the exchange bondholders. Judge Griesa's injunction might be a defense, especially as the indenture provides that:I think this tees up two intriguing scenarios that would potentially play well for the Republic.In the base scenario, Argentina avoids default by offering to pay BNYM, and BNYM declines the payment without any liability. Argentina, then hasn't paid anyone and still hasn't defaulted. The result is that the obligation remains in a sort of suspended animation. In theory this could continue indefinitely. But no default, so no cross-defaults, and the Republic gets to hold on to all of the funds (interest would accrue, but that's nothing different). This actually seems like a reasonably good outcome for Argentina, as it puts Argentina in a good position to force some sort of negotiated settlement and incentivizes the exchange bondholders to buy out the holdouts so that they can get paid on the exchange bonds.Faced with the base scenario's strange limbo of no payment and no default, BNYM could go to New York Supreme Court with an Article 77 petition seeking advice from the state court about what it, as a trustee, is supposed to do. Article 77 is a rarely used procedure, but BNYM has used it before, such as in the $8.5 billion Bank of America MBS settlement. What is particularly appealing about Article 77 here is that it is a very open-ended, ill-defined inquiry. That means that it might be possible to get the NY State court court to rule on the interpretation of the pari passu clause (perhaps through an intervention by the Republic in the Article 77 proceeding). If that happens and the Republic got a favorable interpretation, then the Republic could then turn around and seek to get the federal court to rescind its injunction on something like a Rooker-Feldman doctrine basis. At the very least, going into state court with an Article 77 proceeding would buy the Republic some time, and it might be a way to get to what the Republic really wants, which is a New York State court ruling on pari passu. This would all take some good lawyering and a state Supreme Court justice who was willing to listen past the fact of the federal injunction, but it's not a crazy procedural route for the Republic to pursue. It's not clear to me whether BNYM would go this route or if the Republic or friendly exchange bondholders could coax/threaten it into an Article 77 proceeding, but the point is that there might still be some litigation routes open to the Republic.