2024-03-01 20:26:20
Almost a dozen writings of around thirty pages each were incorporated between this Thursday and Friday in the trial that the Burford vulture fund is carrying out against the Argentine Republic for the way in which 51 percent of the shares of the state oil company YPF were nationalized. in 2012. They are “friend of the court”that is, support from actors external to the trial that reinforce Argentina’s appeal in the YPF case.
Brazil, Uruguay, Ecuador, Chile; hydrocarbon-producing provinces such as Chubut, Formosa, Jujuy, La Pampa, Mendoza, Neuquén, Salta, Santa Cruz, Tierra del Fuego and Río Negro; the Public Bar Association of CABA and Argentine academics with knowledge of the sector and the subject; American and other international relations professors; Argentine administrative and constitutionalists; and American academics join the list of support for Argentina in the trial that has been going on for more than eight years in New York courts.
A friend of the court This is what is known as a “friend of the court” brief. It means that the person who presents the document is not someone involved as a party in the trial, but rather considers that he or she can collaborate with the court by presenting its position regarding the issues in dispute. In this case, and with several writings already incorporated into the case as an annex, with arguments favorable to Argentina’s appeal.
On Friday, February 24, the Government appealed to the New York courts. In the writing he maintains that The case has to be tried in the country and that the damages were “enormously inflated” of the plaintiffs. The line of appeal, the first advance in the case under the government of Javier Milei, follows the same argumentation of the defense of the Argentine State during the administrations of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Mauricio Macri and Alberto Fernández, trying to invalidate the interference of the United States justice in the case.
In the document, Argentina asked the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit of New York to reverse the sentences in their entirety because they were based on errors in Argentine law and under the premise that a United States court should have abstained from exercise jurisdiction over cases founded entirely on Argentine law. Both the district court’s conclusions regarding Argentina’s alleged contractual liability and the calculation of damages are questioned.
After the presentation of the appeal by Argentina, On March 25, the plaintiffs will do the same. They rejected Preska’s ruling from last September for having exempted YPF from liability and included only the State, despite the fact that the amount claimed – calculated between 12,000 million and 17,000 million dollars with interest – was similar to that of the ruling. Once the appeal of both parties has been presented, it is estimated that the camera will not be issued until after September.