YPF trial: Argentina made its statement in New York after the presentation of an NGO
The Argentine State presented a response to the motion made by the NGO Republican Action for Argentina (RAFA) to request that the ruling against it for the expropriation of YPF be revoked, in which the country was sentenced to pay compensation of US$16.1 billion plus interest. Near midnight, the Treasury Attorney's Office reiterated before the international courts "its desire to clarify once and for all the facts surrounding the acquisition of YPF shares by the Eskenazi family," according to official sources.
"The response also expresses the firm will of this Government to collaborate with its counterpart in the United States in any investigation that may shed light on the facts and circumstances surrounding this matter , without this implying abandoning its position that the US courts are not the appropriate forum to resolve the claims of the plaintiffs in this case," they added.
The Argentine defense strategy in this case was taken over by Juan Ignacio Stampalija , the new deputy attorney general of the Treasury, appointed to be in charge of international affairs, after replacing Andrés De La Cruz , whose resignation was accepted last Friday. Stampalija entered together with the new attorney general of the Treasury, Santiago Castro Videla , who in turn succeeded Rodolfo Barra , who was expelled from the Government a month ago.
The beneficiaries of the YPF ruling, the Burford and Eton Park funds, also filed their briefs and said that the NGO RAFA “ does not present any argument that demonstrates that it has a legally recognizable interest in the commercial transactions , the renationalization of YPF or the related assets that are at the center of this case.” Instead, they said, the NGO “intends to act in defense of the public interest, perhaps as a ‘plaintiff,’ or private prosecutor, according to Argentine law,” said Sebastián Maril, director of Latam Advisors, who closely follows the lawsuits against the country abroad.
“In addition to these substantive deficiencies, RAFA has also failed to comply with the basic procedural requirements of Rule 24. Those seeking to intervene must serve all parties pursuant to Rule 24(c), but RAFA instead mailed its documents directly to the Court, without providing notice to the parties and without any valid justification for ex parte treatment,” added the beneficiaries, represented by the law firm King & Spalding.
The NGO appeared last week in Loretta Preska 's courtroom in the Southern District Court of New York to request that the ruling be revoked and managed to get the judge to issue a hearing order to the parties involved in the trial. "It is extremely important that the reasons for the presentation be upheld in order to protect the rights of all Argentines," Fernando Irazú, representative of RAFA, told LA NACION .
According to the lawyer, the sentence is “a procedural fraud that consummates an international fraud in a criminal scheme through which they take the fruit of a government corruption that has affected YPF and all Argentines.” Irazú appeared in Preska’s court with information and documents about the alleged fraudulent purchase, in 2008, of 25% of YPF shares by the Petersen Group, of the Eskenazi family, in collusion with the Kirchner couple.
According to the lawyer, not only are the interests of Argentines affected, but also those of Americans, because the ruling is a terrible " policy making " that opens the American judicial system "so that corrupt people can go and request the fruits of corruption."
However, after hearing the presentation, Maril pointed out that the Eskenazi issue was already a central part of the trial and was not part of the final ruling due to lack of evidence , since the same judge considered that there were no arguments to annul the case.
In the same vein, the president of the Nation’s Tax Court, Miguel Nathan Licht, said that the NGO’s claim is a “heroic remedy that has the same chance of success as sending the goalie to head in the last minute of the match , and that goalie is Chapulín.” In his X account, he added: “In United States v. Beggerly, 524 US 38 (1998), the Scotus [Supreme Court] considered that relief under rule 60(b)(6) is available only in extraordinary cases and that the parties must demonstrate that they could not have discovered evidence of corruption earlier through reasonable diligence . What would be the fact of corruption that was omitted by the court if it is said that it was based on a complaint that is more than 15 years old? And let’s assume that, after the ruling, a fact of corruption was confirmed in the defendant country. Do you really think that the American court is obliged to take note? “How unserious it all is!” he concluded.
On April 16, 2012, YPF shares were owned 57.5% by Repsol, 25.5% by Petersen (a subsidiary incorporated in Spain, owned by the Eskenazi family) and 17% by other minority investors, including Eton Park, with a 3% stake. On May 7 of that year, the public interest law came into force in Argentina, leaving 51% of YPF shares held by Repsol “subject to expropriation” and under “temporary occupation” by the Argentine State. In July, Petersen declared bankruptcy in Spain after having defaulted in May on the loans made by a pool of European banks to finance the purchase of YPF shares.
In May 2014, Argentina completed its expropriation of Repsol's 51% stake in YPF after paying the Spanish company US$5 billion in sovereign bonds.
On March 4, 2015, Petersen's bankruptcy trustee, the former holder of YPF shares, sold all claims related to the expropriation to Prospect Investments LLC, a subsidiary of Burford Capital LLC, the fund that filed the claims on behalf of Petersen, according to the document filed by YPF.
Just a month later, on April 8, Petersen filed a lawsuit against the country and YPF for “anticipatory breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel.” He added: “Petersen alleged that YPF breached its alleged obligations to enforce the provisions of the tender offer and sanctions on the shares acquired in violation of those provisions.”
In June 2015, Eton Park, another YPF shareholder, filed lawsuits against Argentina and the oil company.
On May 31, 2023, Judge Loretta Preska blamed the Argentine State , but exonerated YPF from liability. On September 16, after a process in which the amount of compensation was analyzed, the judge confirmed that Argentina must pay almost US$16.1 billion plus interest.
In February 2024, the Argentine State submitted to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York the first brief with arguments for the second instance judges to review Preska's sentence.
In September 2024, the final written submissions of the three parties (the plaintiffs, YPF and the State) were submitted to the Court of Appeals and now await the appointment of a three-member panel and the date of a hearing in which the case will be heard.
lanacion
