YPF expropriation case: court suspends discovery until Argentinas appeal is settled

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted a motion Argentina had filed, requesting the discovery process over the 2012 expropriation of state-owned energy company YPF be postponed until the country’s appeal on the case is resolved.  The dispute stems from the legal battle Argentina has been waging against Burford Capital in U.S. courts over the expropriation for more than a decade now.  In 2023, Judge Loretta Preska ruled that the country had breached its contract and ordered it to pay US$16.1 billion, a judgment Argentina’s lawyers have appealed. President Javier Milei celebrated the ruling shortly after it was announced.  “This decision marks a historic milestone in the Argentine Republic’s defense in a legal dispute that, for more than twelve years, has also entailed enormous economic, legal, and reputational costs for the country,” read a communiqué published on social media by the presidential press team. The Argentine Treasury Attorney General’s Office, which is representing the government, had filed a formal request to halt discovery in late January. In a statement sent to Judge Loretta Preska, the government based its ask on the fact that Burford was “doubling down on their requests for increasingly intrusive and irrelevant discovery.”  They added that this was taking place despite the fact that, for the past two years, the country had “produced anything that could reasonably lead to identification of its executable assets.”  The text went on to say that, despite all this, the plaintiffs continued with their demands because their actual goal was not to obtain asset-related discovery but to “throw sand in the gears” of economic recovery, “harass the Republic into settling, or force Argentina into contempt and inflict corresponding reputational harm.” What the plaintiff was demanding  In January, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the judge to have the country held in contempt and sanctioned for alleged delays in providing official communications required by the court. The complaint was also related to a discovery process in the case involving emails and messages from current and former officials. The plaintiffs asserted that certain officials failed to provide all the requested documentation and argue that this justified additional sanctions. The Treasury Attorney’s Office rejected the contempt charge. They asserted that the country was complying with current court orders and that no punishment can be imposed before the right to a defense has been fully exercised. -With information from Ámbito