The national State reaffirmed its willingness to cooperate in good faith with the orders of the justice of the United States to work on the formula amount determined in the trial for the renationalization of YPFwhile reiterating that reserves its right to file an appeal of the final ruling in the case.
This was indicated by the defense of the Argentine State in charge of the law firm Sullivan & Cromwellin a letter sent to the New York judge in charge of the case, Loretta Preskaand to which Télam had access.
“The Republic respectfully disagrees that these damage figures are correct and furthermore does not agree with the Court’s liability rulings and reserves all of its appeal rights.”clarified the defense, which has a period of 30 days to make the formal request.
Preska issued a ruling yesterday that did not contain the amount of the penalty that Argentina must pay, but estimates were that it could reach US$16,000 million. Finally, the judge defined that the country must pay US$14,385 million to the Burford Capital fund and US$1,714 million to Eton Park Capital for the decision taken in 2012.
The letter is actually a response to a letter sent by the group’s representatives Petersen and Etonfrom the study Kellog, Hansen and associateswho accused the country “that he refused to confer in good faith with the plaintiffs to prepare a joint filing”said the trial lawyer. Derek Ho.
Lawyer Ho referred to the latest requests from the New York judge to give a final number to the amount jointly.in the same court order from last week when he ruled on the formula that should be applied to calculate the amount of compensation to the plaintiffs for the expropriation of YPF, and according to the March 2023 ruling against Argentina.
“That is not true”retorted the Argentine lawyers, who in turn denounced that “unilaterally” the law firm presented its calculations yesterday to the US justice system, while exposing its cooperation and the numbers contributed to the case.
Preska had last week ordered both parties to work together on the interpretation of “Professor Fisher’s formula D,” which is what the judge chose to calculate the final amount to pay. This formula actually arises from the same statute of YPF, which dates back to the ’90s and which for Argentina has one interpretation and for the counterparty a different one.
And in that train of trying to make the calculations that Preska ordered, both parties also did not agree to interpret the final amount of the sentence, which differs by almost US$1,000 million. While Petersen and Eton Park are asking for almost $16 billion, Argentina differs in the calculation of the eventual damage “at $800 million,” according to the plaintiffs in the text sent to Preska.
However, “This does not mean that Argentina agrees with the sentence ordered by Preska or with paying US$15 billion”, explained a lawyer who follows the case very closely. “It also doesn’t mean he waived his right to appeal,” the source continued.
In fact, in a footer of the letter from the Argentine defense, it reaffirms its position to appeal, which was known as soon as the ruling was issued. The only thing Argentina did with this last letter was to specify the amounts of the sentence, and comply with a procedural step that has nothing to do with Argentina’s opinion on the matter, experts on the subject explained.
The problem, the sources added, is that “here the parties did not agree on the application of the formula either and now the judge will have to decide who is right”although it is not a substantive issue but rather “a procedural issue.”
On September 8, the ruling against the country regarding the formula to calculate the amount of the sentence issued in March 2023 was barely known. The national government announced that it was going to “immediately” appeal the ruling issued by Preska in a case for the nationalization of YPF.
The law firm Sullivan & Cromwell expressed “its disagreement with the unprecedented and erroneous decision of the district court” of New York, and ratified “the intention to appeal the sentence.”
Robert Giuffrapartner of the firm, assured that “the ruling handed down in matters of damages reflects the fundamental misunderstanding of the district court regarding the applicable Argentine law and exacerbates other serious errors of Argentine law that the court already committed in previous instances of the case. “.
Source: Ambito
