The U.S. Argument
“This case highlights the government's strong interest in the proper application of the principles of foreign sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (“FSIA”) and federal common law. These issues may have significant ramifications for United States foreign relations and affect the reciprocal treatment of the United States and its assets in the courts of other countries,” state the documents submitted by officials from the United States Department of Justice.
The documents also warn that Argentina could face irreparable harm if the stay is not granted, since, if the YPF shares are delivered to creditors in U.S. territory, “it could lose the ability to claim such property, even if it prevails on appeal.”
In addition, it is emphasized that requiring the country to post a bond during the appeal process would mean it must identify assets in the United States, which would be exposed to potential seizures.
U.S. officials also argue that there are reasons to believe that Argentina could succeed in its appeal, since the district court's order requiring the transfer of the shares doesn't conform to the aforementioned legal principles.
Meanwhile, they argue that staying the judgment would not cause real harm to the plaintiffs, given that “Argentina has indicated that it retains its shares in YPF and can't sell them without legislative authorization.”
The three briefs, one from each plaintiff, present similar arguments and bear the signatures of Jay Clayton, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Sean Buckley, Assistant U.S. Attorney.
