Key Points
— A US appeals court overturned the $16.1 billion judgment against Argentina over the 2012 nationalization of YPF, ruling 2-1 that the lower court misinterpreted Argentine law
— Shares of litigation funder Burford Capital, which backed the plaintiffs and stood to collect most of the award, crashed 47% on the decision
— President Milei celebrated with “WE WON IN THE YPF LAWSUIT” on social media, removing a multi-billion-dollar liability that had hung over Argentina’s economy for over a decade
The Argentina YPF case took a dramatic turn on Friday when a US federal appeals court struck down a $16.1 billion judgment against the country over the 2012 nationalization of its largest oil company. The Rio Times, the Latin American financial news outlet, reports that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled 2-1 that the original trial judge had misinterpreted Argentine law — removing what had been one of the largest sovereign debt liabilities in the world and delivering a major victory to President Javier Milei’s government.
Milei responded immediately. “WE WON IN THE YPF LAWSUIT…!!!” he posted on X, calling it a historic achievement after more than 12 years of litigation that had cost the country enormous economic, judicial, and reputational damage.
What the Argentina YPF Case Was About
In 2012, Argentina under President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner expropriated 51 percent of YPF’s shares from Spain’s Repsol for $5 billion, renationalizing the company that had been private since 1993. Former minority shareholders Petersen Energia Inversora and Eton Park Capital Management sued, arguing that Argentina was required under YPF’s bylaws to make a tender offer to all shareholders — not just Repsol.
In September 2023, Manhattan federal judge Loretta Preska agreed and awarded the plaintiffs $16.1 billion, which had since swollen to over $18 billion with interest. The case was backed by UK-listed litigation funder Burford Capital, which stood to collect the majority of any payout.
The Appeals Court’s Reasoning
The Second Circuit found that the plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract damages claims were not recognizable under Argentina’s civil codes and public law. In effect, the appeals court said the case — which concerned a domestic Argentine company governed by Argentine legislation — should have been interpreted under Argentine legal principles, not US ones. One of the three judges during the October 2025 oral arguments had openly questioned whether the case should have been tried in Argentina at all.
The plaintiffs can still petition the US Supreme Court, a process that could take months or years. But the reversal immediately halts any collection efforts and severely damages the case’s commercial viability for Burford, whose shares collapsed 47 percent in US trading on Friday after multiple volatility halts.
What This Means for Argentina
The ruling removes a contingent liability equivalent to roughly 3 percent of Argentina’s GDP — a figure that had weighed on sovereign credit assessments and complicated Milei’s efforts to stabilize the economy. The plaintiffs had attempted to seize Argentina’s 51 percent stake in YPF and had sought to trace Argentine government assets in the United States, including central bank gold reserves held overseas.
For Milei, the victory strengthens his narrative that Argentina is cleaning up the legal and financial mess left by previous administrations. For investors in Latin American energy, the case is a reminder that sovereign expropriations — whether in Argentina, Mexico, or elsewhere — carry legal consequences that can take more than a decade to resolve, and that appellate courts can reverse outcomes that seemed settled.