Buenos Aires, March 29 (NA) - Former Undersecretary of the Treasury Sebastián Soler warned that, despite the favorable ruling for Argentina in the YPF case, political criticism of the 2012 expropriation could harm the country's position in future judicial proceedings. He stated that the New York Court of Appeals validated that the State acted in accordance with Argentine law when it regained control of the oil company.
The expert reviewed the evolution of the lawsuit, initiated in 2015, and explained that during the first years, the discussion focused on jurisdiction. "Until early 2020, the only thing discussed was whether the trial should take place in New York or in Argentina. The Court of Appeals just said the opposite, and this is not only bad because it's not true, but it's also dangerous for Argentina," he warned.
Soler noted that although the ruling is decisive, new avenues of appeal could still be attempted. "We cannot rule out that the plaintiffs will try to appeal to the Supreme Court or other instances. In 2020, the judge determined that it had to be held in New York, and from there, the main discussion began," he said.
According to his detailed account, the central axis of the litigation was to determine if the Argentine State, when expropriating 51% of the company, was obligated to make an offer to purchase shares from minority shareholders. "The discussion was whether, under Argentine law, the Government had to offer to buy the shares of the minority shareholders and not just the majority shareholder, which is what it had done," he explained on Radio Rivadavia.
Soler indicated that the Argentine defense consistently maintained that this obligation did not exist. "Argentina always maintained that Argentine law allows it to expropriate for reasons of public utility the number of shares it considers most convenient," he affirmed.
In the first instance, the judge considered that the corporate statute implied a breached contractual obligation, but the Court of Appeals adopted the opposite criterion.
"The Court said two things: that the statute is not a contract but a method of organizing a society, and that under Argentine public law, no provision of a statute can restrict the constitutional power to expropriate," he specified.
At the core is the idea that the statute of a private society cannot be above the sovereign power of Argentina to expropriate," he pointed out, and considered that "in that measure, there was a state policy."
However, he expressed concern over political statements after the ruling.
"I am concerned that they continue to say that the expropriation was done poorly."
And he added: "The main reason the Court rules in favor is because it concludes that under Argentine law, the actions taken in 2012 were correct."
As learned by the Argentine News Agency, the former official emphasized that the defensive strategy was maintained across different governments.
"The arguments were the same in the first instance and on appeal. If Argentine leaders insist that what was done was illegal, that can be cited against in a possible continuation of the case," he stated.
Finally, he highlighted the economic relevance of the result.
"The argument that the statute cannot limit the power to expropriate is the one that allows Argentina to win the lawsuit," he concluded, emphasizing the impact of having avoided a potential multimillion-dollar sentence.
