Appeals court clears YPF (NYSE: YPF) as investors’ New York claims fail

Rhea-AI Filing Summary

YPF Sociedad Anónima reports a favorable outcome in key U.S. litigation. The company states that on March 27, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a prior judgment from September 15, 2023 dismissing all claims brought against YPF by Petersen and Eton Park entities.

The court also reversed the judgment that had been entered against the Argentine Republic, finding the plaintiffs’ contract claim was not cognizable under Argentine law, and vacated a turnover order relating to YPF shares held by the Republic. Plaintiffs may still seek further review, and YPF indicates it will continue to defend itself using applicable legal procedures and defenses.

Positive

• All claims against YPF dismissed at appellate level: The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a prior judgment in favor of YPF, dismissing all of the plaintiffs’ claims against the company in the New York proceedings.
• Reversal of judgment against the Argentine Republic and vacated turnover order: The court reversed the judgment against the Republic and vacated a turnover order concerning YPF shares held by the Republic, reducing pressure around enforcement actions involving the company’s equity.

Negative

• None.

Insights

Litigation and risk analyst

Appeals court fully clears YPF in New York lawsuit, easing legal overhang.

The disclosure explains that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a prior judgment dismissing all claims against YPF in litigation brought by Petersen and Eton Park entities. This means the company currently faces no liability in this case at the appellate level.

The Second Circuit also reversed the judgment against the Argentine Republic, holding the plaintiffs’ contract claim is not cognizable under Argentine law, and vacated a turnover order concerning YPF shares held by the Republic. Plaintiffs can still attempt further challenges, but this ruling materially reduces legal risk for YPF compared with an adverse or uncertain outcome.

Form 6-K: How Foreign Companies Report to the SEC →

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 6-K

REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-16 OR 15D-16

UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the month of March 2026

Commission File Number: 001-12102

YPF Sociedad Anónima

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Macacha Güemes 515

C1106BKK Buenos Aires, Argentina

(Address of principal executive office)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F:

Form 20-F ☒ Form 40-F ☐

YPF Sociedad Anónima

TABLE OF CONTENT

ITEM 1 Translation of letter to the Argentine Securities Commission dated March 27, 2026.

City of Buenos Aires, March 27, 2026

To the

COMISIÓN NACIONAL DE VALORES (“CNV”)

25 de Mayo 175

Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires

BOLSAS Y MERCADOS ARGENTINOS S.A. (“ByMA”)

Sarmiento 299

Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires

A3 MERCADOS S.A.

Maipú 1210

Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires

Ref.: Relevant Fact – Judicial Proceeding in New York

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We are writing to you in order to comply with the CNV Rules and the corresponding regulations of ByMA and A3 Mercados.

In connection with the proceedings brought by Petersen Energía Inversora S.A.U., Petersen Energía S.A.U., Eton Park Capital Management, L.P., Eton Park Master Fund, LTD. and Eton Park Fund, L.P. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against the Argentine Republic (the “Republic”) and YPF S.A. (“YPF” or the “Company”), on March 27, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”) affirmed the September 15, 2023 judgment rendered by the United States District Court for the Southern District (the “District Court”) in favor of YPF and the dismissal of all of Plaintiffs’ claims against YPF. In addition, the Second Circuit reversed the judgment against the Republic on the basis that Plaintiffs’ contract claim is not cognizable under Argentine law and vacated the District Court’s turnover order in respect of YPF shares held by the Republic.

Plaintiffs may seek to challenge this decision in accordance with applicable procedural rules. If they do so, YPF will continue to defend itself in accordance with the applicable legal procedures and available defenses.

Sincerely,

Margarita Chun

Market Relations Officer

YPF S.A

SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

		YPF Sociedad Anónima
Date: March 27, 2026		By:		/s/ Margarita Chun
		Name:		Margarita Chun
		Title:		Market Relations Officer

FAQ

What litigation update did YPF (YPF) disclose in this Form 6-K?

YPF reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a prior judgment dismissing all claims against the company. The case involved Petersen and Eton Park entities suing both the Argentine Republic and YPF over alleged contract issues.

How did the U.S. appeals court rule regarding claims against YPF (YPF)?

The appeals court affirmed a September 15, 2023 judgment that dismissed all claims against YPF. This confirmation at the appellate level currently leaves YPF without liability in the New York proceeding brought by Petersen and Eton Park plaintiffs.

What did the appeals court decide about the Argentine Republic in YPF’s case?

The court reversed the judgment against the Argentine Republic, finding the plaintiffs’ contract claim is not cognizable under Argentine law. It also vacated the district court’s turnover order that related to YPF shares held by the Republic in connection with that judgment.

Can plaintiffs still challenge the Second Circuit’s decision involving YPF (YPF)?

Yes. YPF notes that plaintiffs may seek to challenge the Second Circuit’s decision under applicable procedural rules. If they pursue further review, YPF states it will continue defending itself through the available legal procedures and defenses in the case.

Why is this U.S. court decision important for YPF (YPF) investors?

The decision removes all current claims against YPF in this high-profile New York lawsuit at the appellate level. That outcome reduces legal uncertainty and potential financial exposure, though plaintiffs retain the option to seek additional review under procedural rules.