Legal Challenge to AySA Sale
Four national legislators have filed an amparo action asking the government to disclose the official appraisal of Agua y Saneamientos Argentinos (AySA) and requesting a precautionary measure to stop the award of a tender aimed at selling 90% of the state company's shares. The filing was made by deputies Ana María Ianni and Florencia Carignano and senators Adán Bahl and Jorge Capitanich, all members of the Bicameral Commission on State Reform and Privatization Oversight. The action targets the Agency for the Transformation of Public Companies (ATEP), which operates under the Ministry of Economy and is headed by Diego Martín Chaher.[S1]
The legislators asked the court to order the immediate delivery of two documents: the full text of Resolution ATEP 1/2026, which classified information about the appraisals of public companies as reserved, and the comprehensive valuation report for AySA, including its methodological criteria, economic projections, and the discount rate applied. They also requested the suspension of the award procedure for National and International Public Tender 504/2-0003-LPU26 and that the government refrain from signing the concession or share-transfer contract until the documentation is provided. In their filing, they warned that moving forward without knowing the official valuation would prevent any check on whether the sale price matches the company's real value, and said it would consolidate irreversible damage to national public assets.[S1]
Secrecy Order and Access to Information
A central objection in the lawsuit concerns ATEP's decision to keep valuation reports for public companies undergoing privatization under reserve. According to the legislators, the agency issued Resolution ATEP 1/2026 on April 1, 2026, establishing the reserved character of those documents, but they denounced that the rule was not published in the Official Gazette. For the signatories, that decision is incompatible with Public Access to Information Law 27.275 and with the principle of publicity of government acts. They argued that all information held by the state is by definition accessible, except for exceptions expressly provided by law.[S1]
The legislators also questioned ATEP's rejection of their information requests, submitted on August 12 and September 28, 2026. According to the filing, the agency responded by invoking the reserved status of the documentation and challenging the legislators' standing to request it. The plaintiffs consider that this refusal not only affects the right of access to public information but also obstructs the oversight functions that Congress is assigned by law over privatization processes. They stressed that the Bicameral Commission has specific powers to supervise privatizations and receive information about their development, citing Article 14 of Law 23.696, which states that the commission must be permanently informed—and also upon its request—about circumstances linked to those processes, along with the corresponding documentation.[S1]
On that basis, they argued that ATEP cannot oppose a general reserve to prevent commission members from learning the valuation of a state company whose sale is underway. The filing includes one of its harshest passages, stating that ATEP's refusal to show the methodological matrix of the appraisal curtails the very competence of the Bicameral Commission, plunging Congress into a deliberate blindness that prevents it from assessing whether the award protects the public interest or consummates an embezzlement of the national treasury. The legislators also rejected the idea that the appraisal can be considered a commercial secret opposable to Congress and the public. They argued that the envelopes with economic offers have already been submitted and formally incorporated into the file, so disclosing the official valuation would not give bidders a competitive advantage.[S1]
Disputes Over Valuation Method
The amparo also raises objections to the procedure that, according to the plaintiffs, the executive branch implemented to determine the value of state companies subject to privatization. The legislators stated that, under the Bases Law 27.742 and its regulatory norms, the National Appraisal Tribunal (TTN) was displaced from its role as the competent body to intervene in those valuations. According to the filing, the task was transferred to a special unit of the Bank of Investment and Foreign Trade (BICE), which would use the Discounted Net Cash Flow method. That system projects a company's future income and expenses and updates them to estimate its present value. The legislators questioned its application and said it can lead to undervaluation of state assets by relying on hypothetical future earnings.[S1]
For that reason, in addition to demanding the AySA report, they asked that the National Appraisal Tribunal be required to provide documentation related to valuation requests, the minutes of its collegiate body, and Resolution TTN 88/2025. The aim, they explained, is to determine how the appraisal was conducted, which body intervened, and what parameters were used to set the company's value. The precautionary request rests on the risk that the operation advances before oversight bodies can access the documentation. The legislators argued that if the tender is awarded…[S1]
