The government of Javier Miley asked, before the New York Court of Appeals, overturn Judge Loretta Preska’s rulingwhich forces Argentina to pay US$16,000 million to the Burford Capital and Eton Park funds for the expropriation of YPF in 2012.
“Because the court wrongly applied Argentine public and private legislation in supporting the plaintiffs’ claims for ‘breach of contract’this court should revoke the decision“, began the writing presented through the study Sullivan & Cromwell LLPa firm that represents the country in the case, and which it shared on its social networks Sebastian MarilCEO of Latam Advisor, and one of the people who followed the litigation in most detail.
Subsequently, it was assured that the court granted a ruling favorable to the plaintiffs. based on a dubious interpretation of Argentine lawthus establishing a jurisprudence that favors the claimants in most aspects. “For a start, This lawsuit should never have reached a New York court.“said the text.
“The defendant is the Argentine Republicthe events in question they occurred exclusively within Argentinaand everyone agrees that the demands They must be analyzed only through the prism of Argentine law“, he argued, in this regard.
This is a position that the country has already had during the administrations of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Mauricio Macri and Alberto Fernándezand which has been maintained after the arrival of Javier Milei to the Executive.
Gopinath endorsed Milei’s adjustment but asked to strengthen support for retirees and vulnerable sectors
Argentina accused the United States Justice of “enormously inflating the damages”
On the other hand, in the presentation, with the initial arguments of the National State, the court and the judge are accused of “grossly inflate plaintiffs’ damages” Given the “should have converted the damages from Argentine pesos to US dollars using the exchange rate in effect on the date of his ruling”.
It should be noted that the compensation of US$16,000 million was set by the judgeafter “proposed judgment” drafted by the parties as “consequence” of the “economic damages” related with the nationalization of 51% of the shares from the company to the Spanish Repsol.
To calculate the final number, the lawyer defined that the date on which the Public Acquisition Offer (OPA)as described in the statute of YPF in the United States, when it began to be listed on the stock market, It was May 3, 2012, the date on which Congress sanctioned Law 26,741; with which the National State expropriated 51% of the shares of the oil company.
Besides, the annual punitive interest rate From that day until September 15, the date on which the resolution was known, it was established by 8%. The sum of all the variables gives the 16.9 billion dollars.
“If a foreign court allowed plaintiffs to sue the United States Government under US law for conduct that occurred in the United States, would create a cause not previously recognized by US courts, and then issue a judgment of more than $2 billion (the equivalent proportion of US federal spending last year), The US government, the US legal system, and the international community would be rightly surprised.“added the document.
Javier Milei said that he will promote a law to punish officials who issue pesos
The Argentine Government’s questions to the Court of Appeals
Based on the arguments presented, the National Government, through its “attorneys”, presented a series of questions to the New York Court of Appeals. They are:
Whether the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over these cases, which involve claims by shareholders of an Argentine company under Argentine law against the Argentine Republic, whether on grounds of forum non conveniens or recognition of the laws of another country . Recognizing an unprecedented action for breach of contract to claim damages under Argentine law, brought by one shareholder against another shareholder for an alleged violation of corporate bylaws; Allowing plaintiffs to seek compensation, even though the Argentine Civil Code limits recovery for breach of contract to the remedies specified in said contract, and does not authorize damages unless specific performance is impossible or the contract has been terminated ; Allowing the plaintiffs to bring claims, although the Republic “acquired” title to the YPF shares from Repsol in 2014 after the plaintiffs no longer owned their YPF shares; and Finally, whether, at a minimum, the district court erred in calculating plaintiffs’ damages by failing to apply the day-of-judgment rule for currency conversion that applies to “obligations denominated in” a foreign currency under Section 27(b) of the New York Judiciary Law; and applying the incorrect date of default and the incorrect rate of prejudgment interest under Argentine law.
Although there are still no definitions in this regard, Sebatián Maril estimated that the ruling by the New York Court of Appeals on Argentina’s imminent request will take place. “between September and December” of this year.
News in development…