Et Tu, FT? (Pari Passu Edition)

Laugh, cry, give up: the Financial Times editorial argues for Supreme Court review of Judge Griesa's decision because not enough countries use collective action clauses (CACs) in their foreign-law debt ... and recommends that all do as the Eurozone and adopt CACs (... in their domestic-law debt?). 

True, Europe had long ago promised to lead by example and adopt CACs in its foreign-law debt, but that was largely beside the point because (a) Mexico had already led by example, and (b) most European sovereign debt is domestic-law ... But maybe not for long ... Then again, domestic law is looking better by the day. For now, London looks safe from Griesa-style lurches, but so did New York until a few weeks ago.

The FT also notes improbably that the U.S. Congress could "modify [state] contract law to deal more sensibly with the [politically toxic] Argentine restructuring." Despite all that, it is hard to disagree with the basic thrust of the editorial and the existential follow-on: "While countries should service their debts in all but exceptional cases, an orderly mechanism for sovereign restructuring is essential for the exceptions. Just as with bankrupt individuals and corporations, value is only destroyed by holding insolvent debtors in never-ending limbo. ... A sovereign bankruptcy regime is not on the horizon."

And on the bright side, at least the FT cares.