Table of Contents
On 27 March 2026 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision that reversed a previous judgment ordering Argentina to pay more than $16.1 billion in a long-running dispute over the 2012 nationalisation of oil company YPF. The appeals court not only set aside the district court’s award but also confirmed that YPF itself was not liable for the expropriation, sending the case back for further proceedings. The ruling represents a major legal development after litigation that began in 2015 and produced a highly publicised adverse decision in the lower court in 2026.
The judgment drew rapid attention inside Argentina and abroad because of the sums involved and the political symbolism of the YPF takeover. The Milei administration framed the ruling as a decisive vindication of the state’s position and a reprieve from what it described as an impending fiscal catastrophe. Legal observers noted that the US Department of Justice had recently taken a stance favorable to Argentina, and that the plaintiffs in the litigation included funds such as Petersen and Eton Park, the latter having acquired litigation rights after corporate failures.
What the court actually decided
The appeals panel reversed the lower court’s judgment that had awarded plaintiffs more than $16.1 billion (including interest calculated from 2026) and ruled out direct liability for YPF in the expropriation claims. The Second Circuit’s analysis focused on jurisdictional and corporate-law questions, concluding that the district court had erred in key legal findings. While the decision removed the immediate threat of a multibillion-dollar payment by the Argentine state, it did not altogether eliminate remaining procedural steps — the matter was remanded for further proceedings rather than being finally closed.
Legal teams on both sides retain options to seek further review. Although the United States Supreme Court could in theory be asked to take the case, many observers consider such appeals difficult to win and believe the path to absolute finality is narrow. Still, the reversal significantly changes Argentina’s exposure and reduces the likelihood of enforced collection in the short term, reshaping the nation’s legal and financial risk profile.
Political fallout and competing narratives
Milei administration response
The presidential office under Javier Milei hailed the ruling as a historic victory and used it to attack political opponents, particularly Governor Axel Kicillof, who was economy minister when YPF was nationalised. The government accused Kicillof of creating a decade-long legal liability that cost the state more than $50 million in legal expenses and exposed the country to a potential payment as high as $18 billion. In strong language the administration argued that its legal team had defused a “time bomb” of litigation that threatened Argentine assets, framing the court outcome as protective of public finances and investor confidence.
Opposition and Kirchnerite counterclaims
Governor Axel Kicillof and other Peronist figures framed the same ruling as a vindication of a sovereign decision to regain control of a national strategic asset. Kicillof called the lawsuits an operation by what his camp routinely labels vulture funds and accused President Milei of serving foreign financial interests. Former president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner also defended the 2012 action, arguing that company charters cannot supersede constitutional sovereignty and thanking the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell for its role in defending Argentina in New York. In Kirchnerite discourse the dispute is often presented as a clash between national economic strategy and external creditor pressure.
Background and what may come next
The original expropriation of YPF in 2012 set in motion complex litigation that plaintiffs opened in 2015. A district judge in New York — Judge Loretta Preska — ruled for the claimants in 2026, producing the large monetary award that was later overturned. The appeals court reversal alters that trajectory, but because the panel remanded aspects of the case, limited disputes may still proceed. The prospect of a petition to the United States Supreme Court remains legally available, though commentators consider it unlikely to be accepted.
Beyond courts, stakeholders are now watching how the ruling affects Argentina’s investment climate, development of resources such as Vaca Muerta, and the political calendar, where figures involved in the 2012 decision remain influential. The episode underscores how transnational litigation can intertwine with domestic politics and economic strategy, and it leaves policymakers and legal teams preparing for the next procedural steps while seizing the political momentum generated by the appeals court outcome.