YPF, on the verge of resolving two million dollar lawsuits in the United States

YPF, the country’s largest state-controlled company, and the Argentine Republic face a key week in United States justice. There are two cases whose resolution may involve art outlay of up to US $ 27,000 million in the event of a loss.

One is to Maximum. This is the acquisition of an oil company in the United States that YPF made in the 90s, under the leadership of José Estensoro. There is a complaint for Environmental liabilities “.

The company went bankrupt, but the remaining wealth managers claim $ 14,000 million for polluting a river in New Jersey. In addition, there are $ 700 million in legal fees.

Both YPF and the “trust” that manages the Maxus bankruptcy have already made their presentations. Judge Christopher Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, he retires on June 30thor. The magistrate expressed his opinion willingness to leave the case resolved before leaving their functions.

From today until the end of the month, you can a negative ruling for YPFwhose, whose the market capitalization is approximately $ 1.5 billion.

Process for the nationalization of the YPF

Another key day for the oil company and the state is Thursday. There will be the third and last presentation of the Burford fund, which was left with Petersen Energía’s litigation rights in expropriation by YPF.

It will also present the Argentine company. Judge Loretta Preska, who is dealing with the case at New York’s Southern District Court, may be inclined to deliver a summary judgment – with a final verdict on the case – or request additional arguments, which would be oral statements by the parties before the court. .

Burford, with the Eton fund, claims up to $ 13 billion. It is due to the expropriation of YPF in 2012. There, the state retained 51% of Repsol – which it then offset with US $ 5,000 million -, but it has not launched a public offer for the rest of the shareholders. Among them was the Petersen group (of the Eskenazi family), which held 25% of the shares. Petersen paid for the purchase of those shares with dividends from YPF.

When the state intervened, it lost its shares and went bankrupt in Spain, where the original company that bought Repsol’s holdings was formed. The Burford Fund acquired the litigation rights from Petersen.

Both cases have potential to get YPF in trouble. The purchase of Maxus has been made without due diligence, according to analysts of the case. In that process, it occurs if the company has judgments or pending debts.

It is estimated that the The Troubles of Estensoror entering the US market led him to that decision. When the state of New Jersey, allegedly a victim of contamination by a company that belonged to Maxus, started litigation, the legal problems began.

The case takes more than two decades. When YPF and Repsol – during their stint as majority shareholders – saw that legal troubles were coming, they tried to separate the assets of the company, leaving in another company – the one that made the bankruptcy – the accusations of contamination.

The various efforts of the YPF were postponing the resolution of the case. The current administration he thought he could turn the tide of the trial in the summer. But then came the court appearances before Judge Sontchi, in the Delaware court.

According to Sebastián Maril, a specialist in cases involving Argentine companies on Wall Street and sovereign debt, the magistrate is reputed to be “tough”. It is close to the pension.

The company handling Maxus’ bankruptcy is asking for over $ 700 million in legal fees, but the sentence is $ 14,000 million, which would be amount to repair an alleged contamination of companies linked to Maxus in the past.

The Burford-YPF saga comes from elsewhere. Both the funds and Argentina already presented their experts on April 14, which were refuted on May 26. Now, they will meet again next Thursday. It could be the end.

Preska has the possibility to decide, through a summary judgment, or to summon competing companies to present “oral arguments”. There, a number of issues could be clarified. For example, if Burford wins the case, he will keep 70% of everything he gets. But she will assign 30% to a third party, which has not been identified so far.

In this case, the Eskenazi family testified in Buenos Aires, at the request of the US judicial system. Judge Preska agreed to settle the case using the Argentine laws, but in US territory.

When YPF was privatized, the company agreed to enter the US listing regime. There it was obliged that prior to any acquisition involving the controlling shareholder, the acquirer had to make a public offering of shares for the shares of the remainder. In other words, if the state kept 51% of the YPF that Repsol had, it also had to bid for the remaining 49%.

However, the YPF expropriation law shows the opposite. That YPF can no longer try to keep parts of the minority, or bid for those shares. This was voted on in Congress in 2014with the support of Kirchnerism and radicalism.

Preska’s decision may take time. On previous occasions, the magistrate took in a month and two for certain resolutions.

NEITHER