A/HRC/14/21 words of Michael Sheehan of Donegal International: “Our experience and that of others in this business is that you always eventually recover. You have a legal claim. Eventually if you litigate and work hard enough, you will always recover a sufficient amount to cover your costs.”53 The independent expert therefore calls upon all countries — creditor and debtor alike — to urgently consider enacting legislation that would make vulture fund profiteering illegal within their respective jurisdictions. 47. The following section briefly reviews the legislative measures that have been taken or are being considered by individual countries to tackle the vulture fund problem. B. Initiatives at the national level 48. At the national level, legislative proposals are being considered or have been adopted in the United States and the United Kingdom to limit vulture fund litigation against HIPCs. In Belgium, the Senate approved a Law in May 2008 which prohibited vulture fund litigation in that country.54 The law stresses that official development assistance funds are “untouchable and non-transferable”. The Senate also adopted a non-binding resolution which, inter alia, called upon the Government of Belgium to urge the World Bank and IMF to develop the necessary legal instruments to ensure that debt relief initiatives are binding on all creditors.55 49. In July 2009, Representative Maxine Waters introduced the Stop Very Unscrupulous Loan Transfers from Underprivileged Countries to Rich, Exploitive Funds Act, or the Stop VULTURE Funds Act (H.R.2932), in the United States House of Representatives. This legislation is designed to protect low-income developing countries from the predatory practices of vulture funds by preventing “speculation and profiteering in the defaulted debt of certain poor countries”. The proposed legislation (which is limited to countries that are eligible to borrow from IDA, the concessional loan facility of the World Bank) would make it illegal for any private creditor holding defaulted sovereign debt to use litigation in a United States court, or the threat of such litigation, to secure payment of more than the total amount they paid for the debt obligation plus 6 per cent simple interest from the date the debt was acquired from an eligible poor country. Companies or individuals that act in contravention of this law would be subject to fines in amounts equal to the sum they sought to claim through litigation. The legislation also seeks to promote transparency by requiring full disclosure from any private creditor seeking to litigate against poor countries in United States courts. 50. It is notable that the United States draft legislation recognizes that profiteering in defaulted sovereign debt is facilitated by the lack of insolvency protections for sovereign debtors that are available to private debtors. Insolvency laws generally protect private debtors by, among other things, stays of execution pending restructuring of debt, suspension of accrual of interest and the ability to discharge debts and obligations as part of a debt restructuring process. 53 54 55 GE.10-13156 payment of the full value once other creditors have provided relief, some creditors are likely to take this route.” United Kingdom, “Ensuring Effective Debt Relief” (see footnote 23), p. 19. Donegal International v. Zambia (see sect. III, footnote 12), para. 76. See http://reflex.raadvst-consetat.be/reflex/pdf/Mbbs/2008/05/16/109374.pdf. P. Vandevoort (11.11.11 Belgium), “Belgian Senate unanimously approves ‘vulture fund’ legislation”, 1 February 2008. Available from http://jubileeusa.typepad.com/blog_the_debt/2008/02/belgian-senate.html. See also IDA and IMF, “HIPC Initiative” (2009) (see sect. III, footnote 7), para. 26. 15