NY court denies Burford appeal in YPF expropriation case

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York rejected Burford Capitals request to reconsider the ruling in the YPF expropriation case after Argentina secured a reversal of the US$16 billion judgment at the end of March. Minutes after the decision became public, President Javier Milei reacted to the news: Another victory for YPF in the New York courts, he posted on X. The Argentine Treasury Attorney Generals Office, the agency that led the legal strategy, described the decision as another endorsement of the legal strength of the position consistently maintained by the Argentine Republic. This outcome represents another milestone in the defense of the interests of the national state and underscores the importance of maintaining an international legal policy grounded in technical rigor, institutional coordination, and the sovereign defense of the public interest, the agency added. YPF President Horacio Marn also welcomed the decision. For YPF, this is a highly significant chapter because it allows us to consolidate our 4×4 plan, boost exports, advance our 2031 vision, and position Argentina as a reliable energy supplier to the world. What can Burford do now? Following this decision, Burford has 90 days to seek review before the U.S. Supreme Court, the last available legal remedy in the United States. There is a 99.99% chance that the Supreme Court will not even agree to hear the appeal because the case involves only Argentine law and does not raise any constitutional issue or matter of major constitutional significance under U.S. law, said Sebastin Soler, former Deputy Treasury Attorney General under President Alberto Fernndez, in a post on X. In a statement issued after the March ruling, Burford also raised the possibility of bringing a claim before the World Banks International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). According to Soler, Burford would likely argue that the ruling violates bilateral investment treaties signed by Argentina and the United States during the administration of Carlos Menem in the 1990s. However, he added that Argentina has very strong arguments to defend itself against such an untimely claim. A historic ruling for Argentina The YPF expropriation lawsuit began in 2015, but the first adverse ruling did not come until 2023, when a U.S. court ordered Argentina to pay more than US$16.1 billion in damages plus interest. At the time, Judge Loretta Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that Argentina had violated YPFs bylaws during its 2012 nationalization. Her reasoning was that the rights of minority shareholdersincluding Eton Park, Petersen Energa, and Petersen Inversorahad not been respected. The latter two companies had previously entered bankruptcy proceedings and sold their litigation rights against Argentina to Burford. Preskas ruling was appealed, and in October 2025 a hearing was held before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Of the three appellate judges, two ruled in Argentinas favor. They agreed that New York was the proper forum for the dispute but found that Preska had misinterpreted Argentine law and its application. They held that Argentinas expropriation law expressly prohibits third-party lawsuits that interfere with an expropriation process. They also noted that a corporations bylaws do not constitute a bilateral contract among shareholders that would allow damages claims of this nature.