Member Info for BlueWiley

From being deprived of their contractual due for over a decade. Argentina's appeal to the

equities like its alleged hardship from having to pay what it owes is beyond irrelevant,

especially when Argentina has made no commitment to actually pay the judgment, and when its

claims of poverty in this Court are contradicted by its own officials' simultaneous boast that YPF's

massive oil and gas reserves enable it to pay the judgment "with one annual EBITDA" and still

have "150 years of gas reserves," making the expropriation "a good decision," and "we would do

it again." Rhodes Decl. Ex. A (July 28, 2023 statement by YPF Chairman Pablo Gerardo

Gonzalez). Vice-Intervenor Axel Kicillof echoed the point, noting that "the numbers are big"

because the Vaca Muerta resources are valuable and allow Argentina to pay. Rhodes Decl. Ex. B.

Finally, this Court should reject Argentina's last-minute effort to throw in an entirely new

issue by challenging the price/income ratios Prof. Fischel used to calculate damages. Argentina

never raised that purported issue in its expert reports, its summary judgment briefing, or even in

its pretrial memorandum, making the issue thoroughly forfeited and well outside the scope of this

trial. And there is a reason Argentina's learned counsel did not raise this purported $3.4 billion

issue earlier: Argentina's criticism of Prof. Fischel's calculations is plainly incorrect, as the ratios

that Prof. Fischel used were the only price/income ratios that were actually used by investors and

computed by the financial community for "reporting purposes" on a daily basis "during" the two-

year look-back period. PX-3 at 7 (Bylaws § 7(f)(v)(D)). The fact that a single database later also

provides revised numbers does not change that reality and in any event, the Bylaws entitle

investors to the highest relevant price/income ratio. This Court should find that Argentina

breached its Bylaws obligations on April 16, 2012, award prejudgment interest at 8%, reject

Argentina's remaining arguments as forfeited and meritless, and enter judgment for Plaintiffs.

Traded company from the majority shareholder without exercising even indirect control over that

majority shareholder's shares. That explains why Argentina did its best, before and during trial,

to ignore the key Bylaws language, which requires a tender offer if Argentina exercises control of

the shares "directly or indirectly, by any means or instrument." PX-3 at 22 (Bylaws § 28(A).

Instead of confronting that broad functional language, Argentina reverts to formalities, arguing that

it could not vote the shares before May 7 and did not actually vote them until the rescheduled

shareholders' meeting on June 4. The Bylaws' text, however, turns on when Argentina directly or

indirectly "exercise[d] the control of" the shares, not when it formally exercised the voting rights

belonging to the shares. Id. As with its earlier unsuccessful focus on formal ownership, see ECF

No. 437, at 27-28, Argentina ignores that the Bylaws' protections were written capaciously and

functionally, not narrowly and formally, because investors insisted on a robust precommitment

before investing in the state-owned oil company of a nation with a history of economic nationalism.

Second, this Court should award prejudgment interest at 8%. The Court held at summary

judgment that "the commercial rate applied by Argentine courts" governs, id. at 63, and both the

case law and trial make clear that rate is between 6% and 8%. Argentina's own expert, Dr.

Manóvil, confirmed that apart from one outlier panel, every modern decision from the Argentine

court for general commercial cases has been in that range or above. And Prof. Fischel's testimony

was undisputed that even the high end of the range 8% simple interest -would undercompensate

Plaintiffs for being forced to serve as Argentina's involuntary creditors for over a decade.

Again, Argentina has no real response. Instead, it ignores the parameters of this Court's

summary judgment decision and asks this Court to award zero prejudgment interest because the

underlying liability is substantial. But this Court rejected similar no- or low interest arguments at

summary judgment, and the judgment's size only underscores the magnitude of Plaintiffs' harm

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This Court's detailed summary judgment opinion has already resolved the vast majority of

this case, establishing that Argentina breached its obligations under the Bylaws "no later than May

7,2012." ECF No. 437, at 28. The Court's meticulous opinion left only two issues to be resolved:

(1) whether Argentina breached earlier by taking direct or indirect "control of [Repsol's] shares"

via the Intervention Decree; (2) what "precise rate" of prejudgment interest to apply based on "the commercial rate applied by Argentine courts," which is "between 6% and 8%." Id. at 56, 62-63.

The evidence relevant to those two issues is straightforward and largely undisputed. First,

Argentina acquired and exercised control of Repsol's shares when it issued the Intervention Decree

on April 16, 2012. Through the Decree, Argentina displaced the YPF Board and Chairman that

Repsol had elected, and installed the Intervenor and Vice-Intervenor in their place depriving

Repsol of the central right of a majority shareholder to select the Board. That seizure of control

over Repsol's shares was reflected in the markets, where the share price plunged by 40% after the

Decree, while barely budging three weeks later. It was confirmed by Argentina's contemporaneous

statements recognizing the change in control, PX-15 at 22, and its contemporaneous actions, as Argentina canceled the shareholders' meeting that Repsol had called for April 25 making it

impossible for Repsol to vote its shares or approve the capital distribution on the agenda (which

as a result never occurred). And it was reconfirmed by the unambiguous determination of

Argentina's own federal appraisal agency of what Argentina took from Repsol-51% of YPF's

shares and when it dispossessed Repsol of those shares April 16, 2012.

As the trial showed, Argentina has no real response. The material facts are undisputed.

Argentina concedes that it took control of YPF as a company through the Intervention Decree; it

argues only that it somehow avoided taking even indirect control of the shares in doing so. But

Argentina has never explained (and cannot explain) how it could take total control of a publicly

Cyber costs off set by insurance and a further £40m cost savings in 2024..

Bloomberg - Capita Beats Expectations!

Dividend to be reinstated in 2024 (modest)

Cyberattack - We now expect net exceptional costs associated with the cyber incident of £20m to £25m reflecting the complexity of the forensic analysis of exfiltrated data. These costs comprise specialist professional fees, recovery and remediation costs, and investment to reinforce Capita’s cyber security environment, offset by anticipated insurance receipts.

…..

The recent trial gathering in the heart of New York's legal arena perhaps symbolizes the culmination of a decade-long struggle over YPF's nationalization. As the legal proceedings unfold, Argentina stands at a crossroads, with the potential for a fresh approach to resolving this contentious issue. Regardless of the final ruling, this chapter in Argentina's history will undoubtedly serve as a case study for law schools worldwide, illustrating the intricate interplay of national sovereignty, legal intricacies, and international diplomacy.

Seb I look forward to catching up the £20+ dinner early in 2024… reckon we should move it to Miami 😎

The $16 Billion Gathering: A Decade in the Making

Over a decade ago, the Argentina embarked on a bold move, exercising its sovereign right to nationalize YPF, the country's largest oil and gas company. This decision, involving the expropriation of 51% of YPF's shares held by Spain's Repsol, set off a series of events that led to a significant legal and diplomatic battle spanning two continents.

While the legal battles resulting from the expropriation raged on, Argentina faced mounting challenges. In 2014, the government reached an agreement with Repsol, paying $5 billion for the expropriated shares, seemingly putting an end to the disputes. However, the story took an unexpected turn when two Spanish companies, Petersen Energia Inversora and Petersen Energia (later joined by Eton Park Capital) filed a multibillion-dollar lawsuit in a New York court. Their claim? Argentina had neglected the remaining 49% of YPF shares, leading to a complex legal entanglement.

Recently, I had the privilege of attending a three-day trial presided over by Judge Loretta Preska in New York. This trial marked a significant milestone, bringing together for the first time all the stakeholders who have been entwined in this legal drama for over eight years. In a dramatic courtroom setting, arguments for and against the multibillion-dollar award were passionately presented by esteemed legal minds.

As the trial unfolded, it became clear that this gathering might be the turning point in the prolonged YPF expropriation saga. While the ruling's outcome on the economic award remains pending (Argentina has already been found liable for the damages caused by the expropriation), the trial prompted reflections on the country's next steps. With upcoming presidential elections, there is a sense that the new leadership will seek to resolve this issue once and for all. Argentina's track record in previous legal battles in this very same case (Court of Appeals and Supreme Court), raises questions about the feasibility of a late-game victory. While Argentina may continue to explore legal avenues, the mounting costs and previous legal setbacks suggest a need for strategic reconsideration. The incoming government should consider assembling a team of legal and financial experts to assess the potential benefits of negotiating a settlement with the plaintiffs. This approach could offer a more pragmatic resolution to a complex and protracted conflict.

🕵🏼‍♂️

… I don’t think it will be back again EVER…

Not a Chartist myself but someone with more knowledge than me pointed out a month or so ago that a rare pattern is forming. After any SP doubles and a short minimal retrace of c10-15% happens and then the SP high is reached again in a short period of time then the next push higher comes very quickly and very strong …

Extremely limited impact if any - BUR anticipated snd changed contracts accordingly as did all the main players.

Https://seekingalpha.com/article/4621048-burford-price-in-the-heat-of-the-ypf-trial-suggests-liquidation-value

Great second RNS - should really boost the SP

He will have chosen his exit timing … bodes well for results this week!

I’m really impressed with his replacement .. let’s see what the market thinks…

I’ve just tipped my toe in.. would be good to see some director buys or institutional TR1’s..

Thanks Ace of Clubs for your wise words - I always thought that if we win the case and the settlement was decided Argentina would send us the cash the next day in crisp dollars!

That why we are all here 👍

Correct

Again*

Will you be listening admin today?

Yes thank you TWT and I look forward to thanking you personally at the £20+ dinner..