The National Government responded to the proposals of Petersen/Eton and Bainbridge, which seek to immediately execute the ruling that orders to deliver 51% of YPF actions
In a new stage of the judgment by the expropriation of YPF, The Argentine State presented its formal rejection of the requests of the plaintiffs Petersen/Eton and Bainbridge, who asked Judge Loretta Preska not to suspend the execution of the sentence that orders the delivery of 51% of the actions of the state oil company.
The Argentine presentation responds to the writings presented on Monday 7 by the litigating funds. In particular, the Petersen/ETON document incorporates a transcription transcribed from a recent conference by Buenos Aires Axel Kicillof.
In that line, the Treasury procurement presented two responses in both casess. The main arguments wielded by Argentina are:
In the case Petersen/Ethon, lThe State’s lawyers spoke of “exceptional nature and unresolved legal issues” and stressed that it is an unprecedented case, with a ruling of US $ 16,100 million still appealed and with complex legal foundations. “Even the United States government has expressed differences with the interpretation of the court,” they emphasize.
Another argument is the irreparable damage and impossibility of legal compliance since executing the “turnover” would force Argentina to violate its national legislation and to lose state control over YPF irreversibly.
Finally, the absence of damage to the plaintiffs and public interest. According to the Argentine defense, there is no specific damage if the execution is suspended, given that local legislation prevents the sale of shares without legislative guarantee. In addition, advancing with the order would affect not involved third parties – as provinces and bonds – and could activate harmful clauses for YPF.
In the Bainbridge case, They warned a violation of Argentine law since transferring actions would imply breaking Law 26,741, which enshrines the public domain over hydrocarbon resources.
They also warn that there are no jurisprudential history that endorses to execute assets of another State in the US under the conditions proposed by the order of Judge PRell, “which reinforces the chances of reversing the ruling,” they complete.
The Government also works on the formal appeal of the order of “turnover” and in a request for suspension before the second circuit, in case the judge rejects the application.
Source: Ambito
