Buenos Aires, (EFE) acquisition of titles to other minority shareholders of the oil company.
Judge Loretta Preska, of the Southern District Court of New York, found the Argentine State responsible but not YPF itself, which had also been sued in this trial.
“The Court finds that the plaintiffs have shown that there is no doubt as to the first element of their claim for breach of contract, that there is a contract that the plaintiffs have the right to enforce against the Republic,” the ruling states, which had EFE access.
The plaintiffs requested in this trial a million-dollar compensation for alleged damages, but the judge did not specify in his ruling on Friday the amount that the Argentine State should pay.
As stated in the 2022 financial statements of YPF, the Burford firm and the Eaton fund claim total damages for 15,900 million dollars, of which 8,400 million are included in direct damages and 7,500 million in ancillary claims and interest calculated up to December 24. September 2021
The case began in 2015, when Burford Capital, a firm that finances litigation, launched the lawsuit after acquiring the litigation rights of two companies incorporated in Spain: Petersen Energía Inversora and Petersen Energía.
The case began in 2015, when Burford Capital, a firm that finances litigation, launched the lawsuit after acquiring the litigation rights of two companies incorporated in Spain: Petersen Energía Inversora and Petersen Energía.
These two companies, which entered into bankruptcy, had previously belonged to the Argentine Petersen group, a conglomerate that had a 25% shareholding in YPF at the time of nationalization and that has not been part of this lawsuit in New York.
Eton Park, a US fund that had 2.9% of YPF, joined the case in 2016 as a plaintiff.
The plaintiffs allege that the Argentine State should have launched a takeover bid for the rest of the shares that did not belong to Repsol.
In his case, the Argentine Government, which has the possibility of appealing, has not yet ruled on Judge Preska’s ruling.
For their part, YPF sources consulted by EFE indicated that the ruling is “positive” for the oil company because the judge acknowledges that the company had no responsibility and is not a guarantor of the Argentine State, therefore its “assets are out of risk.” .
Argentina and YPF have argued during the judicial process that the law approved by Parliament in 2012, by the then Government of Cristina Fernández (2007-2015), which declared 51% of YPF subject to expropriation as a public utility, prevented the State from purchase additional shares.
They have also objected to the legitimacy of US jurisdiction to pursue this case.
The plaintiffs availed themselves of the investor protection rules prevailing in New York, given that YPF trades its shares in this market, in addition to Buenos Aires.
