YPF: begins to be set today if Argentina has to shell out $ 3 billion

Once the protocol is complete, the judge will announce whether his decision will be known immediately on the same day or whether it will take a few days to communicate his resolution. Preska could take three different paths. The first would be to determine that this is a case already decided, leaving no room for Argentina's request for removal, while upholding the decision of the United States Supreme Court to uphold the case. in the judicial system of that country. The second solution would be to respond to Argentina's request, but by demanding more evidence to justify the badertion of the lawyers defending the country. In this case, the judge would require strong arguments to justify that the manner in which the Petersen Group sold 25% of the shares of the oil company between 2007 and 2008 was illegal. In this case, Argentina must be very convincing to explain why it ends up in a US court in a case of possible acts of corruption, the case of which is not even raised in the country.

The third way, linked to the second, is that Preska also gives rise to the opening of the Discovery clause, also relying on the arguments invoked by Argentina as to why it is important to know who might potentially charge before a discovery clause. trial with unfavorable judgment. The second option is obviously the most convenient for the country, beyond the final result of the case. It is badumed that with these alternatives, they would gain at least six months, until Preska calls the parties to determine whether Argentina's claim is valid or not. In this scheme, Preska's decision also has added value: Mauricio Macri's government could include the process of investigating allegedly illegal acts when opening 25% of YPF's shares as part of the campaign. election. This is not a minor fact. Among the direct stakeholders are two key players in the October elections: Cristina de Kirchner herself, candidate for the vice presidency; and Axel Kicillof, former Minister of the Economy, candidate for the office of governor of the province of Buenos Aires. The third named by Argentina is the former Minister of Planning, Julio De Vido.

The case began on April 8, 2015, when the Burford fund, managed by lawyer Christopher Bogart, appeared in court, still under the command of Thomas Griesa, claiming that Argentina n & # 39; 39; had not included the remaining 49% in the list. same payment transaction to Repsol for the renationalization of 2012. On May 11, 2016, Preska took over the business and opened the process; Failure in favor of applicants in October of the same year. Then, Mauricio Macri's government appealed the decision to the New York House, which also upheld the Burford case on April 26 this year. Argentina appealed again and the case was remitted to the United States Supreme Court, which finally decided on June 24 that the case should remain under the judicial jurisdiction of the North American territory and return for its final resolution at the Preska tribune. The judge must now give a definition of the case, an action that will begin with the hearing today.

The case is based on the Burford lawsuit, to which Eton adhered, for the way the oil company was nationalized without going through a takeover bid, as it appeared in the 1993 law during the privatization promoted in the presidency of Carlos Menem. In this country, the country has committed, on the New York Stock Exchange, in any subsequent acquisition transaction of part of the oil company, obliging to make an offer for all of the shares market at the same value. In 2013, Burford negotiated with the Spanish courts the takeover of the bankruptcy of the companies Petersen Energy and Petersen Energía Inversora, two companies that originally represented the shares of the Petersen group in the oil company; but that already at the beginning of this year they had filed for bankruptcy with the courts of Madrid. Burford, a specialist in the detection of internationally judged and potentially litigious cases, has acquired judgment rights for approximately US $ 13 million under a contract signed by the liquidator of the bankruptcy. In the presentation of the writings of Burford, he specified that the purchase of the case came back to the Spanish justice and that in 2013, it had nothing to do with the oil company Petersen Group. This point would also be one of the plaintiff's arguments in favor of rejecting Argentina's request to transfer the case to Buenos Aires to determine whether unlawful acts had been committed at the time of the Petersen group entered the oil company. Burford is not a specialist in financial investments, but focuses on the alternative of finding mega-capital companies in bankruptcy or bankruptcy with third-party claims, but not having the right to sue for years.

In the case of Petersen, after the re-nationalization of YPF to 51% in May 2015, he was not able to support the purchase of the 25% that he had agreed to at the same time. Néstor Kirchner era, the Argentine group was presented in competition in Spain in 2012., unable to continue to make the promised payments to enter the oil company, prohibiting the government of Cristina de Kirchner to pay dividends and with the nationalized YPF. For example, Petersen had agreed with the Argentinian government on the liquidation of its initial debt with Repsol. The government's change of plans in 2012 therefore determined its bankruptcy and subsequent bankruptcy. A few months later, Burford appeared and claimed some $ 3,000 million.