A one million dollar lawsuit has been opened against YPF and the Argentine state in New York

The wink of the United States has been short-lived. Although Argentina got support from North American justice last January by the million-dollar judgment that ruled the vulture funds against the country and

YPF

Due to the nationalization of the company in April 2012, it was known today that the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit had made its final decision.

And it is that the case can continue in parallel without the Supreme Court having to decide on jurisdiction, which the highest court has consulted the US Attorney General – the White House lawyer –
without predefined deadlines.

The information was leaked by the US justice. In the same way, the authorities confirmed to the NATION that they presented to the Court of Appeal an order of urgency asking to be reconsidered in order to consolidate the sentence which she qualified as "surprising".

"After submitting the certiorari, the State and YPF requested the suspension of the trial at first instance.The Appeals Chamber has logically accepted the request, because the purpose of the certiorari is to determine whether it corresponds or no to US jurisdiction, six months have pbaded with facts that have consolidated our position (the suspension): several amici have supported us, Mexico and Chile stand out, as well as several academics. 39, executive an unusual opinion, which should, after the two meetings With the Solicitor General and the State Department, the executive power is made public in May, even with these facts, surprisingly without notice or notice, the chamber charged the judge to open the trial, "the sources said.

And they pointed out that the decision to make the final decision is "contradictory" because six months have elapsed since the suspension of the trial, a period during which there were solid events on the way to the Court and untimely, because they violated principles. constitutional as due process and defense in court.

Beyond that, the government insists that it is a process and that we must respect the steps and, of course, respect them.

The problem began six days before the third anniversary of the nationalization of Kirchner's control of the oil company. In April 2015, Burford Capital Limited, a megabuffer with badets of more than 500 million US dollars, sued the oil company and the state in the Southern District Court of New York. for the alleged breach of the commitments made with the holders of shares. from YPF.

The claim has no established amount, but in the market, it is estimated at about 3 billion US dollars. The weak point of the country is the burden left by the Eskenazi family, which entered the company in 2008 as part of an operation in question. Among the other companies, Eskenazi created the companies Petersen Energía Inversora and Petersen Energía. Burford bought the bankruptcy of both – it happened after the nationalization – which he uses to plead against the country.

The plaintiffs argue that the status of the oil company violated the rights of the minority shareholders, who had not received an offer to sell their stake. In 1993, in the context of the privatization of YPF, the Carlos Menem government offered nearly 100% of the company's capital through clbad D shares and listed the ADRs – the title under which foreign papers are traded on the stock market. United States – on the New York Stock Exchange.

At that time, the country and the company pledged that any subsequent acquisition of some of the company's control would require bidding for the total shares. This reservation is contained in the documents that YPF sent to the SEC (the US securities regulator), as well as in its old law. The argument of the local lawyers is that the nationalization of YPF took place under the sovereign immunity law, it did not violate the laws on the public offer in the United States.

This option would force Burford Capital to resort to the Argentine courts, as the government wishes. However, the US court rejected this argument on two occasions: in first and second instance, by a decision of the Southern District Court of New York. Axel Kicillof rejected before the Senate the possibility for the country to bet everything. "Believe me, if one wanted to buy shares to enter the company and spend 15%, he jumped on the bear trap and had to buy 100% for a value equivalent to $ 19,000 million because the morons are the ones who think that the state must be stupid and buy everything according to the law of the YPF itself, in respect of its status! ", did he declare. The complainants used these words to justify the country's failure to comply with the laws.