RE: Petersen6 Jun 2020 13:06
: Story of a trial that could cost up to $ 12 billionThe case started in 2015 and went as far as the United States Supreme Court.The case for the expropriation of the Argentine oil company presented in New York in 2015 against YPF and against the Argentine Republic, learned of its fate this Friday. Judge Loretta Preska of the Court of the Southern District of New York considered that the case will remain in the United States and cannot be transferred to an Argentine court.From the beginning, YPF and the Government have categorically rejected the claims alleged in the lawsuit as inadmissible, arguing that the United States was not an appropriate forum to deal with such a sensitive issue. YPF and the Government, as defendants, time and again presented arguments that support the idea of ??transferring all the proceedings to an Argentine court. However, first the Southern District Court of New York, then the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and finally the United States Supreme Court ruled against the request of YPF and Argentina or refused to hear the case.After a decision in January 2019 of the nine North American supreme judges, Argentina and YPF launched the last possible legal procedure and presented a motion to dismiss the case using the doctrine of the "Forum de No Conveniens".In simple terms, the defendants claim that Petersen Energía Inversora and Petersen Energía, the Spanish companies that filed the lawsuit in 2015 and that are not currently related to the Petersen Group, erred in assuming that they could present their claims in a North American court. In fact, Argentina and YPF maintain that the same instruments under which the oil company sold its shares in New York in the 1990s when it was privatized mention that "any action related to the execution of the statutes or the rights of a shareholder in by virtue of them they must be presented before an Argentine court. "Recall that Judge Preska herself in September 2016 already had an opinion on the transfer of the case to Buenos Aires, indicating that there were insufficient guarantees that the Argentine courts offered a fair and impartial trial. Three years later, the Mauricio Macri government managed to convince the judge that the country had changed and that Argentina now offered an independent court. The Judge agreed to listen to the new arguments.However, during this period of allegations and exchange of briefs, there was a change of President in Argentina and the plaintiffs insist that the country once again does not offer judicial guarantees.The judge of the Court of the Southern District of New York, Loretta Preska, this Friday ruled and opined that, although Argentina has independent courts, the case should remain in New York and the parties should inform it on June 19, how they plan to continue. Burford Capital has already said it plans to continue and will seek to collect economic damages.What can be the economic damage?Since the beginning of the judicial proceedings
Sign In
Follow the stocks
