A US court has failed against Argentina in a lawsuit for the nationalization of YPF – 07/10/2018

A New York court ruled on Tuesday against Argentina: ruled that the claim of some $ 3,000 million from a vulture fund for the expropriation of YPF must continue his process in United States and not move to Buenos Aires, as claimed by the Argentine government

The decision of the Court of Appeal of the South District of Manhattan applies a blow to the strategy of our country, who sought to transfer the lawsuit to Argentina to resolve through local justice the claim of Burford Capital Fund, which remained with the companies of the Petersen Group, the Eskenazi family, and the ability to sue.

The decision can still be appealed by the government to the United States Supreme Court. " It's a question of sovereignty" Argentine lawyers had warned

At a hearing in New York in June of last year, the judges heard the arguments of the government lawyer, YPF and Burford group representative. They have taken no decision, which will be communicated within a period that could extend even for months, sources told this correspondent

At the end of the session, the Attorney General of the Nation, Bernardo Saravia Frías, said that "without a doubt, we want the lawsuit to arrive in Argentina, it is a sovereign act and it is a situation that must be discussed in the Argentine courts ", he said.

Argentine lawyers argued that US courts did not have jurisdiction to rule on the claim – including the investment fund Burford had acquired the rights for 15 million euros – for the doctrine of "state law", which determines his power the judge will not intervene in the acts of other countries in regarding events occurring on its territory. "The expropriation (of YPF) is constitutional and was approved by the Argentine Congress," exhibited Maura Barry Grinalds, of New York studio Skadden, who defends the Republic in this case.

Argentina, said the lawyer then, is a sovereign state and therefore immune to commercial activities that were not in the case of this expropriation, because it is protected, like other countries in the United States. ., by the Foreign Immunity Act (FSIA). That's why the case should be resolved in Argentina, they say.

Burford-Petersen's lawyer argued on the contrary that during the Kirchner government, Argentina had broken the contract by expropriating 51% of the oil company's offer to minority shareholders (the country has paid Repsol, which was the majority, for nationalization). They say the subject is commercial law and must be tried in the United States, where the shares were issued

The trial judge, Loretta Preska, rejected the change of jurisdiction in Argentina and brought the case before the Court. The problem that has been solved today is a question of procedure and not the case of merits, which should be dealt with after the resolution of this instance. Burford claims that the Kirchner government did not indemnify the Petersen group in the expropriation of YPF, contrary to what happened with Repsol.

In view of the novelty, the Petersen Group reiterated a statement issued in 2015, when the complaint was filed. Burford. "Following the takeover of YPF SA by the national state, Petersen Energía SA and Petersen Energía Inversora SA proceeded to the transfer of all the shares held by that company as security for the loans received for their acquisition. which, from that moment, they no longer have any stake in YPF SA.Therefore, the Petersen Group states that it is on the sidelines and has no interference in any judicial process that takes place in Argentina or abroad. "

After the new setback, the government has the opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court and gain more time in this deal he inherited from Kirchnerism.