The High Cost of YPF Nationalization: A Ruinous Event for Argentina

The nationalization of the YPF pineapples carried out by Cristina Elisabeth Fernández and the then Minister of Economy Axel Kicillof was destined, from its origin, to end up being a ruinous event for our country.

It was not necessary to be knowledgeable in law to warn that the public acts promoted by Cristina and her Minister of Economy were going to end up having a high price. And so it is: US$16 billion, to which are added the legal costs, which add up to several million more.

In the nation’s congress, only a few opposed, and not strictly to nationalization, but to the de facto procedure that violated the rights of the members of Repsol-YPF and the Eskenazi group. After stating that not a single peso would be paid to the Spanish company, finally – and in an agreement between friends – Kicillof ordered the payment of US$5 billion in state bonds to close the dispute, but the issue of the Eskenazi remained pending.

Quoting the newspaper Clarín: «The arrival of the Argentine Eskenazi family – through Petersen Energía – to the ownership of YPF was woven through a particular system. The Spanish company Repsol sold up to 25% of the shares of the largest company in the country without the Eskenazis having to put up much money. The operation was carried out through a “loan from the seller”: Repsol lent money to Petersen Energía so that this Argentine firm could keep shares that belonged to the Spanish company.

Nice way to acquire an asset: with a loan from the person who sells it. Original wherever you look at it. That same family filed a lawsuit on their behalf and sold it to a very aggressive fund that specializes in this type of litigious investment. Why did they sell the trial? Because the banks that guaranteed the loans with which Petersen Energía paid Repsol the percentage of YPF prompted it to file for bankruptcy in Spain. That’s when the Burford fund appeared, which bought the rights to litigate for €15 million. The Spanish liquidator of the bankruptcy accepted, but in exchange he reserved 30% of what Burford receives as compensation.

In the midst of all this chaos, Axel Kicillof’s defense was to talk about vulture funds and causality, because the ruling occurred in the middle of an electoral campaign. Judge Preska recently ruled in favor of Argentina in another lawsuit for US$96 million promoted by the Bainbridge fund, refusing to seize the Central Bank’s reserves. Despite having agreed with Bainbridge in its claim due to non-payment, the judge ruled against the seizure of reserves governed by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA Act), which establishes immunity for non-commercial assets of the state entities before the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States.

It is not the judge, it is the recklessness and stupidity of these rulers who prostrate the country in the name of a hallucinatory and hallucinatory speech that produces these immeasurable damages.