The controversial expropriation that Argentina carried out in 2012 of YPF, under the Government of the then president Cristina Fernández, has resulted almost a decade later in a harsh sentence against the South American State, which must pay 16,000 million dollars (14,955.44 million euros), although he will appeal the sentence.
The federal judge of the Southern District of New York, Loretta Preska, ruled this Friday in favor of the Burford Capital fund, which promoted the lawsuit after acquiring the litigation rights of two companies incorporated in Spain, Petersen Energía Inversora and Petersen Energía, formerly belonging to the Argentine group Petersen, which had 25% of shares in YPF-, which was joined by Eton Park -US fund that had 2.9% of YPF-.
The plaintiffs had alleged that the Argentine State should have launched a public acquisition offer for the rest of the shares that did not belong to the Spanish company Repsol - owner of 51% of the expropriated YPF -, as established by the oil company's statute, and the ruling known today forced Argentina to pay the largest possible amount: 16,000 million dollars.
The expropriation of YPF occurred during the Cristina Fernández government (2007-2015) and with the current governor of Buenos Aires, Axel Kicillof, then vice-minister of Economy.
On April 16, 2012, the Argentine Government declared 51% of the oil company YPF, controlled by the Spanish company Repsol, of public utility and subject to expropriation; A few days later, on May 3, the Congress of the South American country approved the YPF expropriation law.
In a 25-page ruling, the judge agreed with Burford, because she considered that Argentina took control on April 16 (and not May 7, when the expropriation law was published); the interest rate that must be applied is 8% (and not 0%, as Argentina intended) and that the P/E ratio, a fundamental component of the formula that determines the value that the country must pay for the shares, must be the higher and beneficial for the plaintiff.
The statements of Kicillof, who at the time had treated those who "think that the State has to be stupid and buy everything according to the YPF statute" as "moronic", were also harshly criticized by Preska in the ruling.
While Argentina estimated that it would have to pay close to $5 billion, the prosecution's claim of $16 billion will prevail.
As soon as the ruling was made public, the presidential spokesperson, Gabriela Cerruti, wrote on social networks that the Executive "will immediately appeal" and that the Argentine government will continue to "defend energy sovereignty" and the "state company YPF against vulture funds."
Social networks were also the scene in which the opposition candidate for the Presidency, Patricia Bullrich, and the governor of the province of Buenos Aires, Axel Kicillof, who in 2012 was the visible head of the YPF nationalization process, clashed.
The former Minister of Security demanded "that the money be provided by Kirchnerism."
The Peronist politician demanded: "Give us Vaca Muerta for the province of Buenos Aires, we will provide the money," citing the world's second reserve of unconventional gas and the fourth of this type of oil, located in Neuquén.
Kicillof added: "In addition, we paid the IMF the 45,000 million dollars that you absconded", in reference to the debt contracted in 2018 by the Government of Mauricio Macri (2015-2019), from the same formation as Bullrich.
Macri also wrote on the social network
At the end of 2013, the Executive of Cristina Fernández and Repsol agreed that compensation would consist of some 5,000 million dollars in Argentine debt and the withdrawal of all judicial litigation, a deal ratified in February 2014 by its Board of Directors.
But derived from that expropriation, the case ruled today dates back to 2015 and tried to resolve whether or not Argentina should compensate the rest of the YPF investors who argued that they were affected when the State assumed majority control and did not make a public offer for the rest. of titles.
Argentina and YPF argued against the fact that the 2012 law prevented the State from acquiring additional shares and objected to the legitimacy of the US jurisdiction to pursue this case, but Preska accepted the plaintiffs' allegations as valid.
