Jersey, a British Channel Island between the UK and France, is home to “vulture fund(s)” , which buy up defaulted debt of poor countries at heavily discounted prices and then demand repayment of the debt’s full value, either through litigation, the seizure of assets or political pressure. The UK has already enacted laws to restrict such action in UK Courts, and Cephas Lumina, the UN Independent Expert on foreign debt and human rights, (Bottom Photo) called upon the Government of Jersey to do similarly and limit the use of the British crown dependency’s courts "for such immoral and unfair deprivation of scarce financial resources from the world’s poorest countries,” Collecting Debt Deprives Population of Badly Needed Resources? Mr. Lumina alleges that such vulture funds “unfairly deprive poor countries of the gains from international debt relief efforts meant for the improvement of delivery of basic social services such as safe drinking water, health care, education and housing.” The US vulture fund FG Capital Management, formerly known as FG Hemisphere, has sued the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in Jersey’s courts for $100 million of debt obligations, with media reports indicating that the debt was bought by the fund for about 3.3 per cent of its total value. (Top Photo from Jersey Campaign to block “vulture funds” at - makewealthhistory.org/2011/05/26/help-stop-the-vulture-funds-again/ Erasing Debt of Globe’s Poorest Countries: The fact that such laws limiting vulture fund access have been applied by British Courts within the UK indicates that they have logic in legality and justice. Debt reduction for the globe’s poorest countries has been a long-standing methodology to try to deliver relief to the globe’s poorest. Professor Jeffrey Sachs and Bono, (Middle Photo - labeled the project "DATA"), have been some of the most visible advocates – the London and Paris club of debtors (private and public debt holders) have agreed to such reductions in the past. Nonetheless, the question will remain by what legal right or imperative should debt-holders be limited if the debt is owed and negotiations at deep discounts between creditor and debtor nation have failed to produce an agreement. The name “vulture fund” is an unfavorable sounding name, but such operate no differently than debt collection agencies with respect to individuals in most developed country markets – who buy credit card and other consumer debt cheaply and then seek all means and the courts to collect. Frequently even if the debt is lacking validity, consumers do not have the time and/resources to fight back in courts. (Read: - “Greed is Good – Abuses in Financial Markets Cause for Spiking Prices & Market Instability?” - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/blog_post/greed-is-good-abuses-in-financial-markets-cause-for-spiking-prices-economic-instability-by-ambassador-mo/35002 Debt eradication for the poorest countries has only been partially successful. It is thus also difficult to make an assessment as to how much such has delivered in the desired result – the poorest countries delivering more health, education, food and other needed services to the population or has there been continued abuse by such country’s leaders in taking advantage of the relief. The original plan by Sachs and Bono for erasing the debt of the globe’s poorest countries was intended as a one time complete sweep and fresh start. By Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey Facebook – Become a Fan at “Diplomatically Incorrect”

 Twitter – Follow us at DiplomaticallyX
 International Financial Crisis Channel - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/c/international-financial-crisis