The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has approved a motion submitted by Argentina, seeking to delay the discovery process related to the 2012 expropriation of the state-owned energy company YPF until the resolution of the country’s appeal in the matter. The ongoing dispute arises from the protracted legal conflict that Argentina has been engaged in with Burford Capital in U.S. courts concerning expropriation, a matter that has persisted for over a decade. In 2023, Judge Loretta Preska determined that the nation had violated its contractual obligations and mandated a payment of US$16.1 billion, a decision that Argentina’s legal representatives have sought to contest. President Javier Milei expressed his approval of the ruling immediately following its announcement.
This decision signifies a pivotal moment in the Argentine Republic’s legal defense, a dispute that has persisted for over twelve years and has incurred substantial economic, legal, and reputational costs for the nation, according to a communiqué released by the presidential press team on social media. The Argentine Treasury Attorney General’s Office, acting on behalf of the government, submitted a formal request to suspend discovery in late January. In a communication directed to Judge Loretta Preska, the government justified its request by asserting that Burford was “doubling down on their requests for increasingly intrusive and irrelevant discovery.” They noted that this was occurring despite the reality that, over the last two years, the nation had “produced anything that could reasonably lead to identification of its executable assets.”
The text indicated that, notwithstanding these circumstances, the plaintiffs persisted with their demands as their true objective was not to secure asset-related discovery but rather to “throw sand in the gears” of economic recovery, “harass the Republic into settling, or compel Argentina into contempt and inflict corresponding reputational harm.” In January, the plaintiffs submitted a motion to the judge seeking to hold the country in contempt and impose sanctions for purported delays in delivering the official communications mandated by the court.
The grievance was additionally associated with the discovery phase in the matter concerning emails and communications from both current and former officials. The plaintiffs contended that specific officials did not furnish all the requested documentation, asserting that this warranted further sanctions. The Treasury Attorney’s Office dismissed the contempt charge. The assertion was made that the nation is adhering to existing judicial mandates and that no sanctions may be enforced until the opportunity for a defense has been completely utilized.