Five keys to understanding what can happen with the lawsuit against the state and YPF in the United States

Trials in the United States for the renationalization of YPF have been numerous in recent weeks. The files that came and went between the courts of first instance and the Appeals Chamber, the measures and orders of the local defenders, the new parallel prosecutions in Spain and, a few hours ago, the decision of a judge who will wait for what the court has to say Supreme Court of this country about whether the case of the state oil company should be treated in this country or in Argentina

Right here, five keys to a case for which the state may have to shell out about 3,000 million USD.

What are the latest developments?

Yesterday, we knew that the judge Loretta Preska, by the New York Southern District Court – the same as the deceased judge Thomas Griesa– declared a stay in the cause. That is to say, put everything on pause until the US Supreme Court defines the jurisdiction of the lawsuit. Both measures – the stay before Preska and the certiorari before the Court, they were solicited by the teams of lawyers of the Argentine State and the oil company headed by a Treasury Prosecutor, Bernardo Saravia Frías.

The US court must now decide whether it hears or not the case of Argentina. In the middle, the highest court asked for an opinion on the issue at General Counsel of the United States, a kind of attorney who depends on the state department of Donald Trump. In a few weeks, the Jural advisor should present its conclusions.

The case – two lawsuits proper – began in 2015 and is led by Burford Capital, a London Stock Exchange listed company specializing in litigation of this type. Because of its global action and the support of "complex" tests, many compare it to a "vulture fund".

Burford claims that the national state has hurt YPF's minority investors when it was bought in 2012 from 51% of the company by Repsol (paid $ 5 billion in bonds). It alleges that Argentina had to make a public takeover bid (OPA) on the other shareholders and postpones the claims of two of them: Petersen Energía and Petersen Energía Inversores (which at the time of lawsuits were two failed companies that were no longer required with the local Petersen group) and Eton Park Capital.

Does Argentina have a chance to win?

"Argentina already has two adverse rulings in the United States, one from Preska and one from the Appeals Chamber. It's complicated, but what we want to show is that the jurisdiction is bad and we have strong arguments to defend it, "said a local source close to the claims.

On the other hand, it must be taken into account that the opinion of the Jural advisor This is not binding. "It had already happened with the links in the hands of the holdoutsand we lost. The court asked the US government to comment on the case, they expressed their opinion in favor of Argentina, but this same court has always failed. Now we are waiting for the General Counsel and then the maximum court will decide. Whatever it is, there will be calls and it will be for a long time. It's missing a lot, "he said a few weeks ago to this media Sebastián Maril, from Fingurú.

What will Preska do during a possible trial? His spectrum is wide, but he is supposed that he could ask for a discovery – It will decide the scope of this measure of presentation of evidence and testimony – to have all the details of the reestablishment of the company.

Why did the state and YPF start another trial in Spain?

Last February, representatives of the country and YPF filed two similar lawsuits in Madrid, Spain. They go against Burford, with the intention of proving that he bought the justice of this country – The liquidator or liquidator of the Petersen bankruptcy – the right to plead. They do not believe that they are funding companies to meet the demands. YPF's hypothesis is that Burford made a "credit transfer", but does not recognize it formally.

"They say they're funding and for us they're hiding the real deal, that's they've bought the lawsuit. That is why the US lawsuits cover the companies name and not Burford's name. If we prove that he has bought them, it will be established that the lawsuit is poorly educated, "explained the sources.

They believe that Burford could have this strategy for two reasons. "Spanish law states that prior to the badignment of a disputed credit, the debtor – Argentina in this case – may match the offer." S / he sold at 10 million euros, for example, Argentina may present the same thing and close the deal. law of ownership, a rule that prevents sales only to advocate and tries to discourage speculation, "detailed sources consulted by Infobae.

The alleged compensation of USD 3,000 million is an estimated calculation resulting from the difference between the price at which the creditor banks of the failed companies that controlled YPF, approximately USD 12 per share, and those of any takeover bid) with an average minimum price formula, about $ 30.

For the moment, however, Maril estimates that Burford – who also controls 70% of Eaton's lawsuit – would have about $ 1,600 million in play since he sold a good deal of the lawsuit to third parties. Along the way, he made million-dollar profits, far more than the $ 15 million he would have paid in Spain. "There is a lot of interest in Wall Street to buy the profits from this test. This is a bad sign: the market believes that Argentina will lose"said the badyst.

When everything is defined?

Strictly speaking, there are no deadlines. Local lawyers are waiting for the Jural advisor answer in a few weeks and that the court decides to take the case or not before the mid-year fair.

If the court takes the case, the case could fail by the middle of next year. If he does not do so and Preska starts the trial, it will be the American justice time, with deadlines for the presentation of evidence, rejections by the parties involved, appeals and appeals. other judicial bodies. A firm conviction, acquittal or conviction and economic compensation against the country could take years.