Are debt contracts modified following some watershed event in the relevant debt markets? Do creditors or debtors or both push for new, perhaps revolutionary, versions of contractual terms? We try to tackle this pertinent issue through the prisms of the evolution of the pari passu clause in sovereign debt contracts. Using substantial empirical evidence, we find that the pari passu clause may have gone through a significant redrafting in the wake of the path-breaking Peru litigation case in 2000, but not in the places where one would, in principle, expect it the most. A whole "new" (and quite revolutionary, potentially) version of pari passu showed up in force in the early 2000s, but for the most part not, according to the (perhaps limited) empirical evidence at hand, in Latin American countries. This seems puzzling at first sight. Why didn't LatAm issuers apparently embrace the "mandatory law exception" pari passu, even as the rest of the world was busy doing just that?