Argentina achieved a new favorable ruling in the case regarding the Kirchnerist expropriation of YPF. In this instance, the Irish judiciary sided with the country and rejected the request to enforce the ruling related to YPF there, as requested by the plaintiffs.
"In this process, they sought recognition and enforcement in Ireland of the ruling issued by the Southern District Court of New York, which ordered the Republic of Argentina to pay more than 16 billion dollars plus interest, a decision that is still under appeal," stated the National Treasury Attorney's Office (PTN).
The PTN highlighted that the plaintiffs had filed similar requests in other international jurisdictions. "This is why the Irish decision constitutes the first resolution within the framework of these international enforcement attempts and represents a favorable precedent for the Republic of Argentina," they emphasized.
Nuevo fallo por YPF.
Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York indicated that the country could wait until the next appeal, scheduled for September, regarding the request from Burford Capital, the main plaintiff in this lengthy trial, to take possession of the company's shares, without the need to provide guarantees.
Judge Loretta Preska, who ruled against Argentina in the first instance, ordered the delivery of the shares. This specific measure will be reviewed by the Court in September and, subsequently, in October, after the legislative elections, the "substantive" appeal will be evaluated, that is, whether Preska's multi-billion dollar ruling is correct or not. Argentina has already announced that it will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in the event of any adverse decision in this case.
YPF.
The Irish ruling
Meanwhile, the ruling from The High Court Commercial of Ireland, signed by Judge Eileen Roberts and spanning 77 pages, began in April of last year at the request of two of the plaintiffs, Petersen and Eton Park.
Roberts based her decision on the fact that neither the Republic of Argentina nor YPF have assets in Ireland that could be seized, except for diplomatic and consular assets, which are protected by their nature. The judge also emphasized that there is no indication that the Argentine State will have assets in the country in the short or medium term, so allowing enforcement would only result in unnecessary use of judicial resources without any real impact for the parties.
The ruling thoroughly examined local case law on the recognition of foreign judgments and concluded that, although the immediate existence of assets is not essential, there must be a reasonable expectation of obtaining a practical benefit. In this case, the lack of assets and the duplication of proceedings in other jurisdictions led the court to dismiss any concrete usefulness of the action in Ireland.
The judge also considered that the plaintiffs already have mechanisms for investigation and enforcement in the United States and other countries, so replicating those processes in Ireland would be redundant.
