The Court of Appeals of the Second New York circuit will pronounce on a decision that could mark a before and after in the relationship between Argentina and the American judicial system: determine if the Argentine State must deliver 51% of the actions it owns in YPF as part of a sentence for the expropriation of the oil company in 2012.
The case dates back to the nationalization of YPF During the second term of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. In 2012, the Argentine State expropriated 51% of the oil shares that were in the hands of Repsol, with the support of Congress.
However, the trial that Argentina faces was not initiated by Repsol, which received compensation in 2014, but by the Burford Capital and Eton Park funds, which acquired the litigation rights of the Petersen Energy and Petersen Investment Energy, linked to the Eskenazi family.
These societies had entered YPF In 2007 without paying money, under an agreement that allowed them to pay with future profits. After the expropriation, they were out of business and without compensation, which resulted in a demand for violation of the company statute.
In June 2023, Judge Loretta press sentenced the Argentine State to pay USD 16,000 million for the way in which the expropriation was carried out. With accumulated interests, the figure amounts to USD 18,000 million today, an extraordinary burden for a country that faces serious economic difficulties and scarce reserves in the Central Bank.
But the conflict does not end there. In June 2025, PRFENKA ordered the delivery of 51% of state actions in YPF As a payment method. Argentina appealed that decision and requested a suspension (“Stay”) of the transfer until the main appeal is resolved, whose hearing is scheduled for the end of October.
What will the Court of Appeals decide?
The Court of Appeals must resolve whether it maintains the suspension of the Presska Order or if it enables the immediate transfer of the shares. The options are three: granting the suspension: Argentina may continue the appeal without delivering the actions, although an alternative guarantee could be required.
Reject the suspension: the State would be forced to deliver 51% of YPFwhich could imply contempt if it does not comply. Find an intermediate way: allow Argentina to deliver other equivalent assets, such as public bonds or titles. In case of an adverse ruling, the Argentine government already anticipated that it will resort to the United States Supreme Court, although this instance rarely intervenes in litigation of this nature.
Follow us in Google News And in our channel of Instagramto continue enjoying the latest news and our best content.
