Inversora v. Republic
Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U. et al. v. Argentine Republic et al.; Eton Park Capital Management, L.P. et al. v. Argentine Republic et al.
- Loretta Preska
- 1:16-cv-08569
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 16
Petersen Energia v. Argentine Republic: Judge Preska denied YPF’s requests and denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ discovery and sealing motions.
YPF’s ability to intervene or obtain an injunction was limited, while the plaintiffs were allowed to continue pursuing alter-ego discovery subject to further proceedings. Argentina’s request for oral argument was denied.
What happened
In Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U. et al. v. Argentine Republic et al. and Eton Park Capital Management, L.P. et al. v. Argentine Republic et al., the plaintiffs had judgments awarding damages and interest against Argentina, while all claims against YPF had been dismissed. The plaintiffs later sought information about whether YPF could be treated as legally responsible for Argentina’s judgment.
YPF asked to join the post-judgment proceedings, to block the plaintiffs’ efforts based on claim preclusion, and to obtain an injunction. The plaintiffs opposed those requests and asked the court to require YPF to provide discovery and to keep some materials under seal.
Judge Preska denied YPF’s requests, denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery, denied without prejudice the motion to seal, and denied the Republic’s request for oral argument. The court required the parties to confer about some remaining discovery and sealing issues.
The detailed version
- Inversora v. Republic · No. 1:16-cv-08569
- Loretta Preska
- Sept. 17, 2025
Background
The court had previously entered judgment for YPF, dismissing all of the plaintiffs’ claims against it. The court also entered judgment for the plaintiffs against Argentina, awarding damages and interest. The plaintiffs later served YPF with a nonparty subpoena seeking information about whether Argentina’s relationship with YPF could support treating YPF as an alter ego of Argentina—that is, as legally responsible for Argentina’s judgment obligations.
YPF objected to the subpoena and then sought orders requiring the plaintiffs to explain why YPF should not be allowed to intervene in the post-judgment proceedings and why the plaintiffs’ efforts should not be barred by res judicata, also called claim preclusion. YPF also sought an injunction stopping the plaintiffs from trying to recover from YPF or its assets under an alter-ego theory. The plaintiffs opposed YPF’s requests and sought an order compelling discovery. They also moved to seal portions of their discovery-related submissions.
YPF’s Requests
The court denied YPF’s request to intervene. It concluded that YPF’s request was untimely because YPF knew about the alter-ego discovery by the end of March 2024, participated in discussions with the plaintiffs, and attended a court conference before seeking intervention in August 2024. The court also found that Argentina, which the opinion describes as YPF’s majority shareholder, could adequately protect YPF’s interests. The court stated that YPF could raise discovery disputes without intervening.
The court also denied YPF’s request based on res judicata. It explained that the plaintiffs had not yet formally asserted liability claims against YPF; they had pursued alter-ego discovery to determine whether YPF might be responsible for satisfying Argentina’s unpaid judgment. The court reasoned that a possible later proceeding would concern YPF’s relationship with Argentina at that time and would involve different facts from the earlier claims against YPF. The court therefore rejected YPF’s argument that the plaintiffs were relitigating the same claims and damages that had already been decided.
The court denied YPF’s request for an injunction. It found that YPF had not satisfied any of the requirements for injunctive relief. The court also found that preventing a possible collection route would impose severe hardship on the plaintiffs, who had not been paid on an approximately $16 billion judgment against Argentina, and that the public-interest considerations favored the plaintiffs.
Discovery and Sealing
The court identified three disputed discovery categories: documents from 18 custodians; electronically stored information from applications other than company email, including Gmail, Teams, WhatsApp, and Slack; and information about other subpoenas. As to the third category, the court ruled that the plaintiffs did not need to provide YPF with the requested information because Argentina could adequately protect YPF’s interests and received all of YPF’s requested information.
The court directed the parties to confer and submit a joint letter within 15 days describing their positions on any remaining disputes concerning the first two discovery categories. In the conclusion, the court stated that the plaintiffs’ motion to compel was denied without prejudice. The court also denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ motion to seal and directed the parties to confer and explain why the materials should be sealed.
Disposition
Judge Loretta A. Preska denied both of YPF’s orders to show cause: the intervention request and the requests based on res judicata and injunctive relief. The court denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ motion to compel and motion to seal, denied the Republic’s request for oral argument, and directed the Clerk to close the specified motions. The opinion did not decide whether YPF ultimately is an alter ego of Argentina or is responsible for paying Argentina’s judgment.
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.