US sides with Argentina in YPF dispute, investors suggest alternative collateral
In a filing late Thursday night, the government told the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the public interest supports resolving the dispute on the merits, "free from the rushed compulsion of an unstayed turnover order and any negative effects it may have on U.S. foreign relations with Argentina."
The investors, Petersen Energia Inversora and Eton Park Capital Management, separately urged the Manhattan-based appeals court to reject a stay of U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska's June 30 turnover order while Argentina appeals.
They said the appeal would likely fail, and Argentina's "strategy of delay and obstruction" against collecting the $16.1 billion judgment, which the country is also appealing, justified the turnover.
The investors nonetheless said if the appeals court is not inclined simply to deny a stay, it should return the case to Preska to let Argentina propose alternative collateral or set conditions to avoid "irreversible outcomes" during its appeal.
"Plaintiffs have no interest in having the shares become unrecoverable in the (unlikely) event Argentina prevails on appeal, and no interest in running an oil company, and so would accept reasonable conditions to ensure the share transfer can be easily unwound if necessary," the investors' lawyers said.
Representatives for Argentina had no immediate comment outside business hours.
Argentina has said it would suffer irreparable harm and its economy could be destabilized if it gave up its stake in YPF, the country's largest energy company.
It has until July 22 to respond to the investors' filing.
Petersen and Eton Park are represented by litigation funder Burford Capital (BURF.L), opens new tab, which has said it expected to receive 35% and 73% of their respective damages.
The litigation arose from Argentina's 2012 decision to seize the YPF stake from Spain's Repsol (REP.MC), opens new tab without making a tender offer to minority shareholders.
Preska awarded the $16.1 billion judgment in September 2023.
The U.S. government expressed its position in a proposed friend-of-the-court brief, which mirrored a position it first took last November during the Biden administration. It said Petersen and Eton Park opposed its motion to file the brief.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
With Columbia as a model, White House seeks fines in potential deals with Harvard and others
The White House is pursuing heavy fines from Harvard and other universities as part of potential settlements to end investigations into campus antisemitism, using the deal it struck with Columbia University as a template, according to an administration official familiar with the matter. Fines have become a staple of proposed deals in talks with Harvard and other schools, according to the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The new strategy was first reported by The Wall Street Journal. Federal civil rights investigations into schools and universities almost always have been resolved through voluntary settlements, yet they rarely include financial penalties. The Biden administration reached dozens of such deals with universities and none included fines. Columbia's settlement with the Trump administration included a $200 million fine in exchange for regaining access to federal funding and closing investigations accusing Columbia of tolerating harassment of Jewish students and employees. The agreement announced Wednesday also orders Columbia to ensure its admissions and hiring decisions are 'merit-based' with no consideration of race, to hire more Jewish studies faculty, and to reduce the university's reliance on international students, among other changes. It places Columbia under the watch of an independent monitor and requires regular disclosures to the government. The agreement deal includes a clause forbidding the government from directly dictating decisions on hiring, admissions or academics. Columbia leaders said it preserves the university's autonomy while restoring the flow of federal money. The Trump administration is investigating dozens of universities over allegations that they failed to address campus antisemitism amid the Israel-Hamas war, and several institutions have faced federal funding freezes, like those at Columbia and Harvard. The federal government has frozen more than $1 billion at Cornell University, along with $790 million at Northwestern University. In announcing the Columbia settlement, administration officials described it as a template for other universities. Education Secretary Linda McMahon called it a 'roadmap' for colleges looking to regain public trust, saying it would 'ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.' As Trump departed the White House on Friday, he told reporters that Harvard 'wants to settle' but that Columbia 'handled it better.' The president said he's optimistic his administration will prevail in Harvard's legal challenge — at least on appeal — and he suggested Harvard may never regain the level of federal funding it received in the past. 'The bottom line is we're not going to give any more money to Harvard,' he said. 'We want to spread the wealth.' ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
From 60 Minutes to Colbert, it's been a dark time for CBS. But there's a ray of hope
The past few weeks have brought a torrent of bad news for those who care about CBS News – the home of the legendary Walter Cronkite and a great deal of investigative journalism over many decades. Most notably, the network's parent company, Paramount Global, capitulated to the Trump administration, unnecessarily – and wimpily – settling a lawsuit by paying $16m, purportedly for a future presidential library. Trump had sued over a story on 60 Minutes, the network's flagship program, claiming it was deceptively edited to favor his then-rival for the presidency, Kamala Harris. After the settlement was announced, Trump crowed that the network had 'defrauded the American people' and was desperate to settle; he also claimed that another $20m in advertising and programming was also coming his way. Days later, another troubling sign. The network decided to dump The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, the top-rated show on late-night television, whose host has been relentlessly critical of Trump. Network bosses claimed the move was financial, since the show was losing money. But it wasn't hard to connect the dots and see this as part of an all-out effort to appease the president. The Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren called for answers in a Variety op-ed, asking: 'Are we sure that this wasn't part of a wink-wink deal between the president and a giant corporation that needed something from his administration?' That 'something' is federal clearance for an $8bn merger between Paramount and another giant media corporation, Skydance. (The latter company is doing its kowtowing part, promising to 'evaluate any complaints of bias' at CBS News, appoint an ombudsman to keep watch, and ensure there are no diversity, equity and inclusion programs at Paramount. The proposed merger got approval on Thursday from the FCC, which means that it's essentially a done deal.) Colbert's on-air commentary on the settlement was brutal: 'This kind of complicated financial settlement with a sitting government official has a technical name in legal circles. It's 'big, fat bribe'.' Could it be a complete coincidence that The Late Show was canceled three days later? Amid all this, one positive development this week shone through like a wan blade of light. A new executive producer for 60 Minutes – the top editorial role – got the nod. To the relief of many there, Tanya Simon is no outsider who might have been tapped to make the show more Trump-friendly. Simon has deep roots at the revered program – a 25-year veteran of 60 Minutes, she is also the daughter of the late CBS correspondent Bob Simon. She has been the acting executive producer since the previous executive producer, Bill Owens, resigned under pressure, saying he felt he no longer had the full editorial independence he had always enjoyed. Her appointment, of course, doesn't mean no political pressure will be exerted from corporate bosses above her, who seem to be under Trump's sway. 'There is great fear about what comes next,' one CBS News staffer told CNN earlier this month. Simon's appointment offers at least a modest measure of reassurance. She 'understands what makes '60 minutes' tick,' said the news division's president, Tom Cibrowski, in a memo to staff. She's also the first woman, in the show's nearly six-decade history, to be at the helm. If the choice had been a right-leaning newcomer, it's a good bet that top quality talent like Scott Pelley – a former chief White House correspondent and a former anchor of the CBS Evening News – would have quickly headed for the door. As for the future of CBS, once admired enough to be dubbed the Tiffany Network, the outlook is mixed. 'I know that the C in CBS stands for Columbia, but … it ought to be called the Contradiction Broadcasting Network,' wrote Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch. That's always been true, he argued, given the bright journalistic legacy of Cronkite and Edward R Murrow along with some ugly chapters in the distant past. That includes the time when – under fire from the FBI director J Edgar Hoover in the late 1940s – the network demanded that all its employees sign a loyalty oath to the US government. When it comes to integrity, that history of contradiction is bad enough. Capitulation, though, is far worse. And given recent events, it's easy to make the case that CBS – or, more accurately, its parent company – deserves that acronym even more. Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture
The Guardian
44 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Are Australians about to see US beef on supermarket shelves? And why is Donald Trump celebrating?
Donald Trump has claimed victory over Australia's decision to lift restrictions on the import of US beef, but don't expect to see the product on supermarket shelves anytime soon, says industry. Much has been made of the timing of the decision, which followed a decade-long process by the agriculture department, and coincides with a push from the Trump administration to open up Australia's market to US exporters. The government has said there will be no weakening or compromise of Australia's biosecurity in opening the gates to more US beef, and most in the cattle and farming industry doubt we'll see much increase of US exports. Here's what you need to know about what impact it could have in Australia. Sign up: AU Breaking News email More than 99% of beef available in Australian pubs, supermarkets and restaurants is Australian beef, says Meat and Livestock Australia. The industry body, as well as Cattle Farmers Australia and the National Farmers' Federation, believe it's unlikely the restriction change will have any significant material impact. Dr Kate Sievert at Deakin University said US beef can't compete with the strong domestic cattle industry. She said it's unlikely Australians could see more US beef on the supermarket shelf, but it could be used more in fast-food or prepackaged meals. 'It's more likely to be used in specific segments of the food system, so areas like food service, particularly in fast-food service or ultra-processed products like ready meals,' Sievert said. 'The US relies a lot more on confined animal feeding operations where it's cheaper to produce.' That doesn't necessarily make it cheaper overall than Australian beef. The cattle industry has also pointed out that of the more niche or exclusive cuts of beef that the US produces, almost all are available already in Australia. Sievert said the rule change would put Australia more in line with countries such as Japan and South Korea that have been importing more beef from the US. But the US has also been facing a steady decline in its cattle herds, and production fell about 1% in 2024. 'Cattle herd sizes are the lowest they've been in decades,' Sievert said. Asked whether the decision on beef will change the dynamic with the US administration, the trade minister, Don Farrell, told the Lowy Institute thinktank on Friday: 'I'm not too sure. 'We haven't done this in order to entice the Americans into a trade agreement,' he said. 'President Trump thinks it's a good decision, [he's] taking credit for it. We have to pursue our national interest, and our national interest is the removal of all of those tariffs.' The government has been at pains to say the decision is not linked to the trade relationship, or the demands for open access from the US. Farrell said the government shouldn't 'give up' on the ambition to have the tariffs removed. He also said Australia's exports have been increasing to the US, ever since the tariffs were announced. 'We do $4bn worth of beef exports to the United States, and it's increasing by the way, we export huge amounts of beef to China, again, that's increasing.' On Thursday, Donald Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, 'The other Countries that refuse our magnificent Beef are ON NOTICE.' The Nationals said those comments from Trump sit at odds with the government's assertion that the decision was separate to the tariffs. The deputy leader of the Nationals, Kevin Hogan, said in a statement that Australia cannot use 'our science-based biosecurity standards as a bargaining chip'. 'We have the US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer directly connecting this decision to the US-Australia trade relationship, but the Albanese Government is saying the complete opposite,' he said. Australia introduced a ban on US beef imports in 2003, in response to an outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow disease. Any country seeking market access to import fresh beef products must undergo a BSE risk assessment. In 2015, Australia granted the US a category 1 status, following a risk assessment, meaning the US had 'comprehensive and well-established controls' to prevent BSE outbreaks in cattle. Category 1 countries are able to import fresh and processed beef into Australia so long as they comply with other conditions. In 2017, Australia released the beef review, which assessed applications for market access from countries that had passed the BSE risk assessment, including the US. That review should have been the final step in allowing access to the Australian market – except it specified that the animal from which the beef was derived must have been 'continuously resident' in the approved country since birth. In 2019, the government began allowing beef imports from cattle traceably born and raised in the US. Imports were also subject to an ongoing biosecurity review that, in practice, has still meant no imports of fresh beef. The restriction changes now allow beef exports that are sourced from cattle born in Canada or Mexico, which the US has been importing to bolster its national herd. That cattle must be traceable, and legally imported and slaughtered in the US. The US imported an average of 700,000 cattle, buffalo or bison from Canada each year between 2019 and 2023 and 1.2 million per year from Mexico over the same period. However, live cattle imports from Mexico have been banned in the US since May, due to the spread of a flesh-eating pest.
