Spot the difference edition.

It’s a schematic of the arguments which the Second Circuit will likely consider when deciding appeals against an order for Argentina to pay holdouts alongside restructured bondholders. Some of the arguments are key. Some are not so key.

Argentina and its restructured bondholders (and Bank of New York Mellon) filed briefs to the Second Circuit on Friday, returning fire at the most recent salvo from holdouts.

We’ll try to do a proper take later on what the briefs say, but first, we thought we’d devote this post to some context on where the litigation is going as well.

Here are some terms from Italy’s 2015 US dollar bond, which it issued under New York law in 2010. It is a pari passu clause, even though you won’t find the words ‘pari passu’.

And so ends a little saga-within-a-saga in the Argentine bond holdout case (but one which shed interesting light on the various sides’ litigating strategies).

(Sometimes, literally so.)

Those are all good ways to describe the likely legal strategies that are now open to Argentina, if it proposes to go on freezing out holdouts but continue paying out on restructured foreign-law debt. That’s after last Friday’s landmark US Court of Appeals decision.