Argentina’s attorney general, Alejandra Magdalena Gils Carbó, has asked Argentina’s Supreme Court to lift the embargo or attachment of Chevron’s assets in Argentina, which the Argentine courts had entered under the Inter-American Convention on Execution of Preventive Measures. In November 2012, I reported on the embargo, and in January 2013 I reported on an Argentine appellate court’s decision affirming the embargo.
I don’t have a translation of the attorney general’s opinion yet, but as best as I can make out, her opinion was based at least in part on Argentina’s interest in economic development and sound energy policy, given Chevron’s role as a partner in the newly nationalized YPF. If I understand correctly, the decision also focuses on the distinction between Chevron Corp., the judgment debtor in Ecuador, and the Chevron subsidiaries or affiliates in Argentina that are the subjects of the embargo, as the Ontario judge focused on a similar distinction in the Yaiguaje decision. But I may have the Spanish all wrong on this, so Spanish-speaking readers and especially Argentine readers, please do feel free to chime in and correct me as appropriate. I would also welcome comments on the practical implications of the attorney general’s opinion—how likely is it to play a role in the Argentine courts’ final resolution of the embargo issue?