YPF: The United States will save $ 3.5 billion in 2019

While the court is awaiting the opinion of Donald Trump's government, a management that monitors the times in direct line with Mauricio Macri's executive, the definition would be postponed until the end of the year, from so that the settlement of the case can be extended until 2020. And that said, Argentina will not have to issue this year a debt of about $ 3.5 billion to face the payment, according to the claim that Burford and Eton initiated the country and that it has already been the subject of a negative judgment in first and second instance.

Until the Supreme Court of the United States was defined, the April ruling that Burford had obtained from the New York Court of Appeal was still pending, where it was considered that Argentina had violated the conditions of the expropriation. and the definition should be speeded up beyond the time of the Court. A few days ago, Preska said that the local group Petersen did not appear as plaintiff in the case and that the litigation companies of the same name (Petersen Energía and Petersen Energía Inversora) did not have to deal with the former Argentine partners of the oil company at the time. Repsol (the Eskenazi family).

The decision of January 4, in which the US court is now closed, is now closed. decided to ask the Government of that country for its opinion on the complaint by Argentina that the competent court should be seised of the case. On that day, the court announced that the "solicitor general" (the state's attorney) would be asked to give his opinion on the case, before making a final judgment on the application from Argentina. The "prosecutor" depends on the government of Donald Trump and the Court has not set a deadline in his opinion, which could take a very long time before giving his views on Argentina's request to move the case the local courts. It is estimated that, in difficult times, the "applicant" could be delayed up to 9 months before sending his writing to the court. The positive point of the case, for the national interests, is that the very good bilateral relations between the governments of Trump and Mauricio Macri could play in favor and delay as much as possible the sending of the opinion of the federal government . Although the times are not determined legally, the truth is that this request would make the process as slow as you want, which would prevent the country from paying a possible payment, at least throughout 2019. The problem is that if the last sentence is negative for the country, the interests will continue and the resolution will be even more onerous for Argentina. In times of extravagant interest rates for a country with a risk greater than 900 points, the best thing that could happen to the national government today is to not have to go out and raise money to liquidate this lawsuit. We will have to wait for a better financial situation in 2020. In January, the liability was about 1,450 million US dollars, which added to the interest as well as to other related cases. which would be added after the final decision could sue the country. the payment of an amount between 3,000 and 3,500 million US dollars. The final amount will depend on the resolution of trial judge Loretta Preska and the final result obtained by the magistrate in the event that the court rules against Argentina.

The nod received yesterday from New York implies a positive signal for the country in terms of the final resolution of the case. Remember the specialist Sebastian Maril, director of FinGuru, who "whenever the United States Supreme Court asked for the opinion of the United States Government, ended up being in favor of the interests of the United States. Argentina and accepted the case ", but that" nonetheless "made the final decision against Argentina" In fact, the last example was very negative for the country.This was the case against vulture funds, where the Supreme Court also asked in 2014 its opinion to the government of Barack Obama, who had bad relations with that of Cristina de Kirchner, but also recommended that the official version of Argentina be heard. the court will take the case.Finally, the highest court dismissed it and the case was referred directly to the court of Thomas Griesa, the decision in favor of vulture funds being final.

The cause comes from the emergence of Burford Capital Fund, a firm specializing in cheap buying, which has potential for international litigation. This fund bought from the Spanish judiciary part of the bankruptcy management that the companies Petersen Energía Inversora and Petersen Energía, two companies created by the Eskenazi family in this country but which, at the time of the renationalisation, had already left at the same time time that the laws Australia, in 2008, to buy shares of the oil company. The case is based on Burford's claim that the government of Cristina de Kirchner nationalized the oil company without making a public tender offer (OPA), as it appears in the report. status defined in 1993 during the privatization promoted under the presidency of Carlos Menem. The country was engaged on the New York Stock Exchange, where the offer of the ADR of the oil company was launched, so that any subsequent purchase of part of the Argentine oil company would make an offer for all the shares of the company. market. During the renationalisation, the government of Cristina de Kirchner did not give importance to this point. Congress approved the purchase of only 51% of the shares. Burford is not really an investment fund or a vulture fund of the Elliott or Dart type, but it is a sophisticated London Stock Exchange law firm that is dedicated to buying lawsuits with large companies. chances of success, but long delay in resolution. The key to the business is that the purchase of judgment is not done with equity, but with investors who trust their experience.

According to Maril, "the government is thus succeeding in advancing a difficult and still fuzzy definition of a lawsuit that began in early 2015. The economic damage the state could face as YPF's largest shareholder are no longer in play. " Yesterday, Justice Loretta Preska decided to bring this last discussion into line with President Macri's concerns and to let the US Supreme Court act. Published only in the jurisdictional question. Only with a decision against the Argentine interests of the nine supreme judges, the issue of economic damage would come back to the first page. But this could only happen during the third quarter of this year and the payment of several million dollars, should it happen, would certainly be the responsibility of the next government. "