A month ago, YPF had to leave urgently to find a new law firm to represent you in the lawsuit you have against for the expropriation of 51% of the shares, occurred in 2012. It happened that Burford Capital, the investment fund that bought the right to litigate the Petersen companies, had hired the same law firm that defended YPF to advise it on its listing on the New York Stock Exchange.
The oil company considered that there was a conflict of interest and carried out a beauty contest (selection process) to choose a new law firm to replace Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. Among the five finalists Debevoise & Plimpton stood out.
“A selection was made of five studies that we considered stronger to defend the situation of YPF. All were asked to present their teams and resources, and to address any conflict of interest with either party. As a corollary of this process, YPF thought that Debevoise was a very solid and reliable study “, indicated company sources.
However, once Debevoise presented the note informing Judge Loretta Preska of the Southern District Court of New York that they were YPF’s new attorneys, the study representing Burford, Kellogg, objected to the submission because it indicated there is a conflict of interest and asked not to advance the assignment of the new study until this issue is clarified.
As Burford pointed out, they had considered Debevoise as potential lawyers several years ago and, although they were not hired in the end, they had apparently been given information about his lawsuit. “Debevoise consulted widely as a potential attorney for the plaintiffs. These discussions involved several Debevoise partners, including the firm’s global co-head of litigation, and resulted in disclosures of the plaintiffs’ litigation strategy, damages claims, and the conciliation strategy “, says the letter that the study that defends her sent to Judge Preska.
They also indicated that Debevoise is currently “Burford’s corporate advisor.” “We believe that we should raise these issues with Debevoise in the first instance, which we will do immediately. We respectfully request that the Court not rule on YPF’s substitution motion until we have had the opportunity to do so “, concludes the submitted note.
“We were very surprised, YPF’s processes are very serious and exhaustive, and the studio had said in writing that it had no conflict situation. We are looking at situations from the past to see if they are conflicts or if it is a Burford issue to lock the designation “, explained in YPF.
“Debevoise apologized and presented in court a note in which says they’re talking to Burford to clarify the points and it points out that YPF did all the steps and all the necessary things to avoid any conflict of interest situation, “they added.
In the event that Debevoise was not accepted by Judge Preska, the oil company indicated that “they have plan B, C and D”. Meanwhile, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips attorneys are conducting the talks, which is a study that always advised YPF during the litigation.
“In general, Burford, like all vulture funds, seeks to create a lot of local noise to put pressure on the case. Everything that makes noise, seeks to exploit it, even if they have nothing concrete, but the objective is to generate noise and put the other in an uncomfortable place “, indicated in YPF.
At the time, the parties agreed to stretch the start of the trial itself until June 2021, and the judge asked the defense of Argentina to continue with the process of obtaining evidence.
BESIDES
– .
