What does the government's submission to suspend the ruling on YPF shares say?

The government filed a request with New York Judge Loretta Preska to suspend the ruling ordering Argentina to hand over 51% of YPF's shares to the beneficiaries of the measure.

In this way, the Casa Rosada (Chairman of the House of Representatives) would attempt to buy time and extend legal deadlines to prevent the sentence from being executed.

In the ruling released last Monday, Judge Preska sided with the plaintiff, the Burford fund , and agreed to seize the Argentine oil company's shares.

Now, the Casa Rosada has asked the judge of the Southern District of New York to suspend the measure and has warned her that it will appeal, as Javier Milei announced on Monday on his X account. He also warned her that if the suspension is not granted, he will go to a higher court to obtain it.

The government has requested a stay of Judge Prezka's ruling and is working on an appeal.

The ruling ordering the surrender of YPF shares is legally unenforceable: it contradicts Law 26.741, which requires congressional authorization by a supermajority and ignores immunity…

— Manuel Adorni (@madorni) July 2, 2025

On behalf of the Argentine Republic, I respectfully request that the Court's decision, issued on June 30, 2025, be kept pending during the remaining interim period, as it may provide the Republic with some respite in the second instance.

The Court should leave the turnover order (i.e., the delivery of shares to creditors) on hold, as the motion easily satisfies four factors to support the appeal: 1) the Argentine government demonstrated that its arguments could be successful; 2) the government would be seriously harmed if it were not granted the appeal; 3) other parties could also be harmed by this procedure; and 4) the public interest prevails.

First, the Republic is likely to succeed on appeal. To satisfy this factor, "the applicant need only present a substantial case on the merits where a serious legal issue is involved and demonstrate that the balance of equities weighs strongly in favor of granting the stay." In re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Props., 2020 WL 3000382, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2020) (Preska, J.) (citation omitted). The Order of Service clearly implicates "significant and complicated legal issues," Citibank, N.A. v. Aralpa Holdings Ltd. P'ship, 2024 WL 664782, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. February 16, 2024) (Rochon, J.), about the interplay between federal common law and statutory sovereign immunity, which have not yet been addressed by the Second Circuit, and about which the United States takes issue with the Court's decision. (Petersen ECF No. 679 at 1 (affirming the "long-standing U.S. position that foreign sovereign property located abroad is not subject to enforcement in U.S. courts"). Specifically, this Court held, among other things, that (1) the FSIA completely displaced the long-standing federal common law governing the enforcement of sovereign property located abroad; (2) the FSIA § 1610(a)(2) requirement that property be "in the United States" can be satisfied if a U.S. court orders a foreign sovereign to modify its laws preventing the transfer of the property to this country; and (3) the stock of a non-U.S. corporation is considered "used for U.S. commercial activity" if it conducts any business here, even if the stock is only voted in its country of incorporation and principal place of business. (See Order of Delivery at 15-20, 25.

Second, the Republic will suffer irreparable harm without a stay. The Transfer Order expressly requires the Republic to relinquish its controlling interest in Argentina's largest energy company, which Argentine law requires the Republic to hold as a matter of its important national interest. (See Petersen ECF No. 578-1 (YPF Expropriation Law) Art. 10.) In the ordinary case, “the denial of a controlling ownership interest in a corporation may constitute irreparable harm” “for which monetary compensation is inadequate.” Wisdom Import Sales Co. v. Labatt Brewing Co., 339 F.3d 101, 113, 114 (2d Cir. 2003). The Transfer Order also presumes that the Court's rulings in the underlying Petersen and Eton Park cases, based on their interpretation of existing Argentine law and now before the Second Circuit, will be affirmed. If Plaintiffs take control of YPF's shares from the Republic and sell those shares, as they have promised to do (Petersen ECF No. 587 (Plaintiffs' Response Regarding Transfer) at 19 (asking the Court to “direct BNYM to transfer the shares to the US Marshall for the SDNY for sale to the public”) (emphasis added))—“it will be impossible to put the genie back in the bottle,” In re 650 Fifth Ave., 2020 WL 3000382 at *3.

Third, plaintiffs would not suffer harm from a stay, which would merely maintain the status quo pending Second Circuit review. The Republic has no plans to sell its shares in YPF; it cannot do so without action by the Argentine Congress. This statutory requirement alone "eliminates the risk of asset diversion" pending appeal. Aralpa Holdings, 2024 WL 664782 at *3. It also ensures that the stay is conditioned on "terms that secure the rights of the opposing party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d)

Fourth, the public interest clearly supports a stay in the extraordinary circumstances of this unprecedented case. Unlike a “typical commercial dispute . . . between two companies,” E.J. Brooks Co. v. Cambridge Security Seals, 2016 WL 908633, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. March 2, 2016) (Preska, J.), this dispute affects Argentina’s sovereignty and national government. The Transfer Order directs a foreign sovereign to amend or—absent an amendment—violate its own laws prohibiting the transfer of the shares. (See Petersen ECF No. 577 (Argentina’s Opposition to Transfer Order) at 5, 7–8.) The Transfer Order also has immediate consequences for YPF—a publicly traded company with 49 percent of its outstanding capital held by shareholders other than the Republic and which employs more than 23,000 people. (See Petersen ECF No. 560 (Argentina's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal Transfer Motion) at 6–7.) Accordingly, “maintaining the status quo” “best serves the public interest . . . given the involvement of non-defendants in this post-judgment action.” Aralpa Holdings, 2024 WL 664782 at *3.

If the Court does not grant a stay pending appeal, the Court should at least order a provisional stay so that the Republic can seek a stay before the Second Circuit, as courts in this District routinely do in ordinary commercial cases. See, e.g., Arctic Ocean Int'l Ltd. v. High Seas Shipping Ltd., 2009 WL 5103283, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2009) (Preska, J.). If ever there was an order that should be stayed, this is it, because this order involves strategic assets of a foreign sovereignty, is directly contrary to the position of the United States, and the Republic's pending appeal of the rulings upholding the Surrender Order raises substantial issues under Argentine and U.S. law.