Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic

Background

The order addresses sealing requests in two related civil cases: Petersen Energía Inversora, S.A.U. and Petersen Energía, S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic and YPF S.A., No. 15 Civ. 2739, and Eton Park Capital Management, L.P., Eton Park Master Fund, Ltd., and Eton Park Fund, L.P. v. Argentine Republic and YPF S.A., No. 16 Civ. 8569. The plaintiffs moved to seal their motion for an injunction and turnover, the supporting documentation, all other papers related to that motion, and the motion to seal and related filings. The order refers to the enforcement request as the “Turnover Motion.”

Legal standard

The court explained that the public has a qualified right of access under the First Amendment and common law to “judicial documents”—court papers relevant to the exercise of judicial power. Because the Turnover Motion and its related papers contained the facts and legal arguments needed to decide the motion, the court treated them as documents subject to the strongest presumption of public access. The court then had to balance that presumption against interests favoring secrecy and make specific findings that sealing was necessary to protect an important interest. Any sealing order also had to be narrowly tailored.

Arguments and analysis

The plaintiffs argued that public disclosure would likely impede a possible commercial resolution of the $16.1 billion judgment, encourage other judgment creditors to bring similar enforcement actions, interfere with the plaintiffs’ priority, and burden the courts. The court noted that the plaintiffs acknowledged that Argentina had not been willing to discuss resolution and that any future discussions were aspirational. It also found that other creditors had known for months about the judgment, the Republic’s controlling interest in YPF S.A., and the possibility of enforcement, so disclosure would not newly reveal the basic information needed to begin an enforcement proceeding.

The court recognized that timing could be important to the plaintiffs’ enforcement efforts, but concluded that maintaining a competitive financial advantage was not traditionally private. It described the claimed loss of resources and potential recovery as substantial but speculative. The court was also unpersuaded that disclosure would cause a race to the courthouse because other creditors could already have acted using publicly available information.

The plaintiffs also relied on the court’s earlier sealing decision in Attestor Master Value Fund LP v. Republic of Argentina. The court distinguished that decision because it involved a joint sealing request based on sensitive financial information and negotiations. The court found that neither circumstance was present here.

Disposition

The court DENIED the plaintiffs’ motion to seal. It ordered the plaintiffs to file the Turnover Motion and accompanying documents on the public docket and ordered the Republic to file its opposition to the sealing motion on the public docket no later than April 22, 2024. The clerk was directed to close the identified open sealing motions and unseal specified docket entries in both civil cases.