The trial against the Argentina and YPF For the expropriation of 51% of the shares of the company that was carried out in New York almost 11 years ago, he had a sentence today. The judge Loretta Preskaof the Court of the Southern District of New York, exempted YPF from responsibilities, but blamed the Argentine State, which must pay compensation of between US$7 billion and US$19.8 billion, according to estimates of the claimant funds. Argentina has two more instances to appeal the adverse ruling, but it must also pay a guarantee.
Funds Burford Capital y Eton Parkwho bought the right to litigate against Argentina and YPF from shareholders of the oil company at the time of the nationalization, won with their arguments that, at that time, the government of Cristina Kirchner did not launch a takeover bid for all the shareswhen he expropriated 51%.
The plaintiffs argued that the company should have made a public offer for acquisition (OPA) to the rest of the shareholders, according to the YPF bylaws and the public offering prospectus that the company presented to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1993.
“The Republic promised security holders that it would provide a compensated exit if it regained control over the requisite number of shares,” Preska said in the ruling.
“The Court agrees that the public offering price that the Republic [Argentina] would have been obliged to offer if the Republic [Argentina] comply with the Statutes is the appropriate measure of the plaintiffs’ compensatory damages. Because the Tribunal cannot identify the date on which Republica activated its takeover bid obligation, it cannot determine the date of contractual notice and therefore cannot quantify Claimants’ compensatory damages. sentence.
Although Petersen appears in the file as plaintiff, the litigation against YPF is carried out by the English fund Burford Capitalwhich acquired from the Spanish treasury the right to sue the country and the oil company in exchange for 15 million euros and 30% of the compensation resulting from the trial.
The companies Petersen Energía and Petersen Inversora went bankrupt in that country, where they were established by the Eskenazi family —also owner of Banco de Santa Cruz—, after alleging that they could not meet the credits they had obtained from a group of European banks. Those loans had been used at the time to buy YPF’s 25% stake and were going to be repaid with the profits from the shares. The Eskenazi family says that the Petersen Group, with operations in the country, “is totally oblivious to the lawsuit.”
YPF today has a market valuation of US$8,576 million, based on its listing on the New York Stock Exchange. Each share costs US$11.5, of which 51% is in the hands of the Argentine State, after being expropriated in 2012, when the Minister of Economy was the current Buenos Aires governor, Axel Kicillof.
In 2014, Argentina paid the Spanish oil company Repsol US$5 billion in compensation for the nationalization of 51% of the shares.
The lawsuit against YPF and the Argentine Republic began in April 2015 in the Southern District Court of New York and is being handled by Judge Almost, heir to the cases of the late Thomas Griesa. Burford and Eton (the other fund that filed a similar lawsuit; Preska united both claims) request financial compensation because, at the time the expropriation was carried out, Cristina Kirchner’s government did not launch a takeover bid for all the shares.
When the expropriation occurred, the Petersen companies went bankrupt in Spain, and accused that they could not pay their commitments, since the price of the shares had collapsed and the new majority shareholder, Argentina, had prohibited the distribution of profits.
YPF and the Argentine State, for their part, tried to convince the judge that the right of expropriation is above any company statute and that the process, in addition, should be carried out in the Argentine courts. The judge rejected this request in June of last year, after three US courts – including the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court – ruled against settling the trial in Argentine jurisdiction.