Eton Park Capital Management, L.P. has expressed its opposition to the Argentine Republic's attempt to suspend the post-judgment discovery process and related contempt proceedings while an appeal is being resolved. On February 19, Argentina will present its arguments to reject the plaintiffs' request for sanctions and contempt, according to information collected by the Argentine News Agency. After the official reply, Judge Loretta Preska will be in a position to decide whether to halt the progress of the proceedings. Argentina's submission of a sworn declaration regarding the gold reserves of the Central Bank to the magistrate is part of its defense of sovereign immunity, while it seeks to suspend the "discovery" process requested by Burford Capital. It has also appealed the $16.1 billion verdict, calling the requests for information about officials and assets a form of harassment. Rejection of the Stay Request In response, the plaintiffs submitted a letter in which they reject Argentina's request to stay the discovery, alleging that it is a maneuver to avoid sanctions and that it does not meet legal criteria or previous court orders. Similarly, in the letter presented on February 6, 2026, to Judge Loretta A. Preska, the plaintiffs argue that the government's conduct of delay—with delays, non-compliance, and incomplete production of documents—justifies denying any postponement. Their argument is that the Republic has no right to a stay, as it had previously requested one and failed to meet the conditions imposed by the court, such as offering guarantees or requesting an expedited review. The new request comes as sanctions and a possible contempt of court are looming, which they consider a strategic maneuver to evade responsibilities. They accuse the Argentine government of inequitable and bad faith conduct, identifying it with: "systematic delays, refusals to comply with court orders, production of incomplete or untimely documents, presentation of witnesses unprepared to testify regarding relevant assets," all of which, they argue, justify denying any equitable remedy, such as a stay. Notice of Non-Compliance The legal criteria for obtaining a stay are refuted under the precedent Nken v. Holder, as they emphasize, because the Republic does not meet the four required factors, as it "does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on appeal, does not suffer irreparable harm (the harm is a consequence of its own actions), harms the plaintiffs by interrupting the pending discovery, and contravenes the public interest by defying judicial rulings." In their response, they state that the Republic has not fully complied with the delivery of essential documents and question that, although a production of 115,000 pages is alluded to, in reality, about 13,500 documents were submitted, many of them irrelevant or public. The request for a complete halt, pushed by the Argentine defense, seeks to stop the post-judgment fact-finding stage, the stage in which plaintiffs request documents and information to identify attachable assets that could be used to enforce the judgment. An example is the gold of the BCRA. It is a specific procedure, different from the appeal of the underlying verdict that condemned the country to pay $16.1 billion for the nationalization of the oil company, as both processes run on separate tracks. The government rejects that it is developing a "systematic strategy of delay," with repeated violations of court orders, late and incomplete submissions, and witnesses who—according to the plaintiffs—were not prepared to testify on relevant assets, such as the Central Bank's gold reserves or agreements with China. According to Burford, that track record would prevent granting an extraordinary measure like a stay. "The stay request was filed after almost two years of attempts at collaboration in a process that became unprecedented and disproportionate," official sources stated. As they explained, Burford had the right to object—as it did now; then Argentina will present its reply, and finally, it will be Preska who decides whether to grant the stay. The Procuración emphasized that the fund's submission does not invalidate the possibility that the judge will grant the stay. And it underscored a central point of the official strategy: if Preska rejects the request, Argentina will immediately escalate the claim to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, as has happened in previous stages of the trial, including when the turnover of 51% of YPF's shares was ordered. In that precedent, the judge denied the stay, but the Circuit Court did grant the suspension while it considered the appeal.
