Former YPF shareholders Petersen and Eton Park sued Argentina in New York federal court, alleging it breached YPF’s bylaws by renationalizing YPF in 2012 without a tender offer. The Second Circuit reversed their $16.1B judgment in March 2026, and their petition for a writ of certiorari is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Argentina has asked to extend its response deadline from November 2 to December 2, 2026.
Latest development Oct 21, 2026
On October 21, 2026, Argentina sought a 30-day extension of its deadline to respond to Petersen and Eton Park’s petition for a writ of certiorari. The extension would move the deadline from November 2 to December 2, 2026.
Why it matters
Whether Argentina owes former YPF shareholders $16.1B now turns on whether any U.S. court revives claims the Second Circuit held not cognizable under Argentine law. The result affects funder Burford Capital, other funders of claims against states, and investors relying on sovereigns’ commercial promises.
Background
In April 2012, Argentina expropriated Repsol’s 51% controlling stake in YPF S.A. (YPF) without making the tender offer to all remaining shareholders that the company’s bylaws required. In April 2015, two Petersen entities sued the Argentine Republic and YPF in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The entities, Petersen Energía Inversora S.A.U. and Petersen Energía S.A.U. (together, Petersen), had held about 25% of YPF. Funds affiliated with Eton Park Capital Management L.P. followed with their own suit in 2016. Burford Capital funded and largely owns the claims.
In March 2023, Judge Loretta A. Preska granted summary judgment on liability against Argentina and dismissed the claims against YPF. In September 2023, the court entered judgment of roughly $16.1B, including 8% prejudgment interest. The judgment comprised about $14.39B for Petersen and $1.71B for Eton Park. On June 30, 2025, Judge Preska ordered Argentina to turn over its 51% YPF stake toward satisfaction of the judgment. In August 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stayed that order pending appeal.
On March 27, 2026, a divided Second Circuit panel reversed outright over a dissent by Judge José A. Cabranes, holding that the plaintiffs’ claims are not cognizable under Argentine law. The panel found that YPF’s bylaws did not create bilateral, shareholder-enforceable contract obligations, and that Argentina’s public expropriation law independently forecloses the damages remedy. It vacated both the money judgment and the turnover order, while acknowledging Argentina’s “knowing and flagrant” breach of promises made to foreign investors. The Second Circuit denied rehearing en banc on June 2, 2026, and the mandate issued. On June 17, 2026, the Commercial Court of England and Wales stayed Petersen’s parallel London enforcement claim pending the plaintiffs’ expected U.S. Supreme Court petition, rather than dismissing it.
On October 1, 2026, Petersen and Eton Park, through former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to reverse the Second Circuit. On October 19, 2026, Judge Preska issued an amended final judgment implementing the mandate. It vacated the 2023 judgment against Argentina, dismissed the breach of contract claim, and closed the case in the district court while the cert petition is pending. The same day, the court barred the plaintiffs from keeping discovery materials for use in a separate investor-state claim against Argentina, an option Burford had flagged as a fallback. On October 21, 2026, Argentina sought a 30-day extension of its deadline to respond to the cert petition, from November 2 to December 2, 2026.
Timeline 12 events
-
OrderArgentina seeks 30-day extension to respond to cert petition
The extension would move Argentina’s deadline to respond to Petersen and Eton Park’s certiorari petition from November 2 to December 2, 2026.
YPF Case: Argentina Asks Supreme Court for 30 DaysJuicio por YPF: la Argentina pidió una extensión del plazo para responder a los demandantes y tendrá tiempo hasta diciembre
-
OrderCourt bars plaintiffs from keeping discovery for treaty claim
The order barred Petersen and Eton Park from retaining discovery materials from this litigation for use in a separate investor-state claim against Argentina. That claim concerns the same overturned judgment.
-
JudgmentJudge Preska formally vacates 2023 judgment against Argentina
The amended final judgment implemented the Second Circuit’s mandate, vacated the breach of contract judgment against Argentina, and dismissed that claim. It closed the case in the district court pending the Supreme Court’s decision on the cert petition.
Argentina awaits the Supreme Court after the YPF case is closed at first instanceYPF Case Closed as Judge Voids US$16.1B RulingJuicio por YPF: la jueza Preska cerró formalmente el caso y la Corte Suprema deberá definir el pedido de Burford
-
FilingPetersen and Eton Park petition U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari
Petersen Energía and Eton Park asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse the Second Circuit’s March 2026 ruling that vacated their $16.1B judgment against Argentina. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement filed the petition on their behalf.
No. ___ In the Supreme Court of the United States (Petition)Docket for 26A204
-
AppealSecond Circuit denies rehearing en banc
The mandate issued in June 2026. On June 17, 2026, the Commercial Court of England and Wales stayed the parallel London enforcement claim pending the plaintiffs’ expected U.S. Supreme Court petition.
-
AppealSecond Circuit reverses the $16.1B judgment 2-1
The panel held the claims not cognizable under Argentine law and vacated the judgment and turnover order. Judge Cabranes dissented.
-
OrderSecond Circuit stays the share turnover pending appeal
-
EnforcementJudge Preska orders Argentina to turn over its 51% YPF stake
The order directed Argentina to transfer its controlling YPF shareholding toward satisfying the judgment.
-
JudgmentDistrict court enters $16.1B judgment against Argentina
The judgment comprised about $14.39B for Petersen and $1.71B for Eton Park, including prejudgment interest at 8%.
-
JudgmentJudge Preska grants summary judgment on liability against Argentina
The court dismissed the claims against YPF.
-
FilingPetersen entities sue Argentina and YPF in New York federal court
Eton Park followed with its own suit in 2016. Burford Capital funded the claims.
-
OtherArgentina expropriates Repsol’s 51% stake in YPF
Argentina renationalized YPF without making the tender offer to remaining shareholders that YPF’s bylaws required.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeWill the U.S. Supreme Court grant or deny review of the Second Circuit’s reversal of the $16.1 billion YPF judgment by December 31, 2027?
- Supreme Court denies Petersen’s petition83%
- Supreme Court grants Petersen’s petition7%
- Still pending on December 31, 20275%
- Burford-backed plaintiffs settle3%
- Petersen withdraws petition2%
- Resolves by
- Dec 31, 2027in 14 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The Supreme Court will most likely deny Petersen and Eton Park’s petition, at 83%, probably in the first half of 2027. The Second Circuit decided a question of Argentine law, which presents no circuit split and little federal question of national importance.
How it resolves. Resolves on the U.S. Supreme Court docket for the Petersen and Eton Park certiorari petition filed October 1, 2026. “Denies” if the Court enters an order denying certiorari. “Grants” if the Court grants certiorari, in full or in part, including any grant, vacate, and remand order. “Settle” if the parties publicly announce a binding settlement and the petition is dismissed or withdrawn on that basis before any ruling on it. “Withdraws” if the petitioners voluntarily dismiss the petition without a settlement. “Still pending” if none of these has occurred by December 31, 2027.
Reasoning
Starting point. Paid U.S. Supreme Court certiorari petitions from federal courts of appeals, filed by elite Supreme Court counsel: About 4% of paid petitions are granted overall. Petitions from experienced Supreme Court counsel succeed more often, roughly 15% to 25%, but far less when the question is foreign law without a circuit split.
Paid certiorari petitions are granted about 4% of the time. Representation by a former Solicitor General and a written dissent raise that figure somewhat. The Second Circuit rested its reversal on Argentine law, holding the bylaws created no shareholder-enforceable obligations and that Argentina’s expropriation law forecloses damages. Foreign-law interpretation rarely draws Supreme Court review, and the record shows no circuit split. Rehearing en banc was also denied, which weakens claims of an exceptionally important question. The main path to a grant is framing the case around the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act or comity, perhaps with a call for the views of the Solicitor General. A call for the government’s views would also delay a ruling and is the main source of the pending risk. Settlement is unlikely while Argentina holds a favorable appellate ruling and owes nothing under the vacated judgment. Since the October 7, 2026, forecast, the record adds only the district court’s ministerial amended final judgment, which does not move any outcome by five points.
Reversal rests on Argentine law, not a federal question · No circuit split shown in the record · En banc rehearing denied over a single dissent · Possible call for Solicitor General views could delay decision · Argentina has little incentive to settle after reversal
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Oct 21, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made