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
- 8
Petersen Energia v. Argentine Republic: Senior Judge Preska denied YPF’s motion to reconsider an earlier order denying intervention and a permanent injunction.
YPF S.A.’s motion for reconsideration was denied, so the earlier order denying YPF’s requests to intervene and for a permanent injunction remains in place. YPF may defend itself in discovery and will be heard if the Argentine Republic seeks a finding that YPF is its alter ego. The plaintiffs’ opposition succeeded in preserving the earlier order.
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., YPF S.A. asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision denying YPF’s requests to intervene and for a permanent injunction.
YPF argued that the court lacked authority over YPF and had wrongly decided issues concerning YPF’s possible status as the Argentine Republic’s alter ego, intervention, and whether the claims were barred by an earlier judgment. The plaintiffs opposed the motion. The court said YPF had not identified an overlooked controlling decision, new evidence, clear error, or other basis for reconsideration.
The court denied the motion, leaving its earlier decision in place. It said YPF may defend itself in discovery and will be heard if the Argentine Republic asks the court to decide whether YPF is its alter ego. Senior United States District Judge Loretta A. Preska signed the order.
The detailed version
- Inversora v. Republic · No. 1:16-cv-08569
- Loretta Preska
- Nov. 10, 2025
Background
The court considered YPF S.A.’s motion asking it to reconsider its September 17, 2025 order. That earlier order denied YPF’s orders to show cause seeking intervention and a permanent injunction. Petersen Energia Inversora et al. and Eton Park Capital Management L.P. et al. opposed reconsideration.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that is generally used only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. It is not a vehicle for relitigating an issue already decided.
Discussion
Jurisdiction. YPF argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—its legal authority to hear the matter—over YPF and had not adequately addressed the effect of Petersen v. Bank Markazi. The court said YPF had overlooked the court’s July 29, 2025 bench ruling, which addressed Bank Markazi. The court described three possible ways to reach assets of a foreign government instrumentality: proceeding against the instrumentality as a third-party custodian; bringing a separate veil-piercing claim based on new theories of liability; or proceeding against the sovereign and seeking to attach the instrumentality’s assets after establishing that the instrumentality is the sovereign’s alter ego.
The court said the present case follows the third approach, which the Court of Appeals had endorsed when discussing Crystallex. Under that approach, the issue is whether the instrumentality’s assets are effectively the sovereign’s assets, rather than whether the instrumentality itself must pay the sovereign’s judgment. The court found the differences between Crystallex and this case inconsequential. In particular, although YPF was not allowed to intervene, the court said YPF could defend itself in discovery and would be heard if the Argentine Republic sought a finding that YPF is its alter ego. The court therefore declined to reconsider its jurisdiction ruling.
Intervention and res judicata. The court previously found YPF’s request to intervene untimely. It said YPF did not address that finding and instead repeated its due-process argument. Because YPF would have an opportunity to be heard if the Argentine Republic sought an alter-ego finding, the court characterized YPF’s request as an attempt to relitigate the issue.
Res judicata is a rule that can bar relitigation of a matter already finally decided. The court again relied on the approach discussed in Bank Markazi and Crystallex. It also stated that, even if the Argentine Republic later pursued a separate liability claim against YPF, that claim would involve different facts concerning the Republic’s current relationship with YPF and would not involve the same damages, alleged harm, and underlying facts previously litigated against YPF.
Disposition
The court denied YPF’s motion for reconsideration. It directed the Clerk of Court to close docket entry 802 in No. 15 Civ. 02739 and docket entry 709 in No. 16 Civ. 08569.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.