Back to Contents

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 6-K

Report of Foreign Issuer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the month of August, 2011

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1):

Yes       No

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7):

Yes       No

Back to Contents

This Form 6-K is incorporated by reference into the registration statements on Form F-3 filed by YPF Sociedad Anónima with the Securities and Exchange Commission (File Nos. 333-149313, 333-170848 and 333-172317).

YPF Sociedad Anónima

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Back to Contents

SOCIEDAD ANONIMA

Financial Statements as of June 30, 2011
and Comparative Information

Back to Contents

Back to Contents

Macacha Güemes 515 - Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina

Principal business of the Company: exploration, development and production of oil and natural gas and other minerals and refining, transportation, marketing and distribution of oil and petroleum products and petroleum derivatives, including petrochemicals, chemicals and non-fossil fuels, biofuels and their components, generation of electric power from hydrocarbons, rendering telecommunications services, as well as the production, industrialization, processing, marketing, preparation services, transportation and storage of grains and its derivatives.

Date of registration with the Public Commerce Register: June 2, 1977.

Duration of the Company: through June 15, 2093.

Last amendment to the bylaws: April 14, 2010.

Optional Statutory Regime related to Compulsory Tender Offer provided by Decree No. 677/2001 art. 24: not incorporated.

(expressed in Argentine pesos)

1

Back to Contents

2

Back to Contents

(amounts expressed in million of Argentine pesos, except for per share amounts in Argentine pesos - Note 1.a to the primary financial statements)
(The financial statements as of June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2010 are unaudited)

3

Back to Contents

4

Back to Contents

Pursuant to General Resolution No. 368 from the Argentine Securities Commission (“CNV”), YPF Sociedad Anónima (the “Company” or “YPF”) discloses its consolidated financial statements, included in Schedule I, preceding its primary financial statements. Consolidated financial statements are supplemental and should be read in conjunction with the primary financial statements.

Following the methodology established by Technical Resolution No. 21 of the Argentine Federation of Professional Councils in Economic Sciences (“FACPCE”), YPF has consolidated its balance sheets and the related statements of income and cash flows as follows:

Investments in companies under control and joint control are detailed in Exhibit C to the primary financial statements.

The consolidated financial statements are based upon the latest available financial statements of those companies in which YPF holds control or joint control, taking into consideration, if applicable, significant subsequent events and transactions, available management information and transactions between YPF and the related companies, which could have produced changes to their shareholders’ equity.

5

Back to Contents

In addition to the valuation criteria disclosed in the notes to YPF’s primary financial statements, the following additional valuation criteria have been applied in the preparation of the consolidated financial statements:

YPF Holdings Inc., which has operations in the United States of America, has certain defined-benefit plans and postretirement and postemployment benefits.

The funding policy related to the defined-benefit plans as of June 30, 2011, is to contribute amounts to the plan sufficient to meet the minimum funding requirements under governmental regulations, plus such additional amounts as Management may determine to be appropriate.

In addition, YPF Holdings Inc. provides certain health care and life insurance benefits for eligible retired employees, and also certain insurance, and other postemployment benefits for eligible individuals in case employment is terminated by YPF Holdings Inc. before their normal retirement. Employees become eligible for these benefits if they meet minimum age and years of service requirements. YPF Holdings Inc. accounts for benefits provided when payment of the benefit is probable and the amount of the benefit can be reasonably estimated. No assets were specifically reserved for the postretirement and postemployment benefits, and consequently, payments related to them are funded as claims are notified.

The plans mentioned above are valued at net present value, are accrued on the years of active service of employees and are disclosed as non-current liabilities in the “Salaries and social security” account. Actuarial losses and gains related to changes in actuarial assumptions are disclosed in “Other (expense) income, net” account of the statement of income.

Revenues and costs related to construction activities performed by controlled companies, are accounted by the percentage of completion method. When adjustments in contract values or estimated costs are determined, any change from prior estimates is reflected in earnings in the current period. Anticipated losses on contracts in progress are expensed as soon as they become evident.

6

Back to Contents

Details regarding the significant accounts included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements are as follows:

7

Back to Contents

8

Back to Contents

Laws and regulations relating to health and environmental quality in the United States of America affect nearly all the operations of YPF Holdings Inc. These laws and regulations set various standards regulating certain aspects of health and environmental quality, provide for penalties and other liabilities for the violation of such standards and establish in certain circumstances remedial obligations.

YPF Holdings Inc. believes that its policies and procedures in the area of pollution control, product safety and occupational health are adequate to prevent reasonable risk of environmental and other damage, and of resulting financial liability, in connection with its business. Some risk of environmental and other damage is, however, inherent in particular operations of YPF Holdings Inc. and, as discussed below, Maxus Energy Corporation (“Maxus”) and Tierra Solutions Inc. (“Tierra”), both controlled by YPF Holdings Inc., could have certain potential liabilities associated with operations of Maxus’ former chemical subsidiary.

YPF Holdings Inc. cannot predict what environmental legislation or regulations will be enacted in the future or how existing or future laws or regulations will be administered or enforced. Compliance with more stringent law regulations, as well as more vigorous enforcement policies of the regulatory agencies, could in the future require material expenditures by YPF Holdings Inc. for the installation and operation of systems and equipment for remedial measures, possible dredging requirements, among other things. Also, certain laws allow for recovery of natural resource damages from responsible parties and ordering the implementation of interim remedies to abate an imminent and substantial endangerment to the environment. Potential expenditures for any such actions cannot be reasonably estimated.

In the following discussion, references to YPF Holdings Inc. include, as appropriate and solely for the purpose of this information, references to Maxus and Tierra.

In connection with the sale of Maxus’ former chemical subsidiary, Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company (“Chemicals”) to Occidental Petroleum Corporation (“Occidental”) in 1986, Maxus agreed to indemnify Chemicals and Occidental from and against certain liabilities relating to the business or activities of Chemicals prior to the selling date, September 4, 1986 (the “selling date”), including environmental liabilities relating to chemical plants and waste disposal sites used by Chemicals prior to the selling date.

As of June 30, 2011, accruals for the environmental contingencies and other claims totaled approximately 703. YPF Holdings Inc.’s Management believes it has adequately accrued for all environmental contingencies, which are probable and can be reasonably estimated; however, changes in circumstances, including new information or new requirements of governmental entities, could result in changes, including additions, to such accruals in the future. The most significant contingencies are described in the following paragraphs:

9

Back to Contents

discussing the possibility of further work with the EPA. The entities that have agreed to fund the RIFS have negotiated an interim allocation of RIFS costs among themselves based on a number of considerations. The 2007 AOC is being coordinated with a joint federal, state, local and private sector cooperative effort designated as the Lower Passaic River Restoration Project (“PRRP”). As of June 30, 2011, approximately 70 entities, including Tierra, have agreed to participate in the RIFS in connection with the PRRP.

The EPA’s findings of fact in the 2007 AOC (which amended the 1994 AOC) indicate that combined sewer overflow/storm water outfall discharges are an ongoing source of hazardous substances to the Lower Passaic River Study Area. For this reason, during the first semester of 2011, Maxus and Tierra negotiated with the EPA, on behalf of Occidental, a draft Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Combined Sewer Overflow/Storm Water Outfall Investigation (“CSO AOC”), which is in near final form. Besides providing for a study of combined sewer overflows in the Passaic River, the CSO AOC confirms that, upon its signing by the EPA, there will be no further obligations to be performed under the 1994 AOC. Tierra estimates that the total cost to implement the CSO AOC is approximately US$ 5 million and will take approximately 2 years to complete. Pursuant to an agreement with the cooperating parties group for the 2007 AOC, Tierra will be responsible for 50% of the cost of the CSO AOC.

In 2003, the DEP issued Directive No. 1 to Occidental and Maxus and certain of their respective related entities as well as other third parties. Directive No. 1 seeks to address natural resource damages allegedly resulting from almost 200 years of historic industrial and commercial development along a portion of the Passaic River and a part of its watershed. Directive No. 1 asserts that the named entities are jointly and severally liable for the alleged natural resource damages without regard to fault. The DEP has asserted jurisdiction in this matter even though all or part of the lower Passaic River is subject to the PRRP. Directive No. 1 calls for the following actions: interim compensatory restoration, injury identification, injury quantification and value determination. Maxus and Tierra responded to Directive No. 1 setting forth good faith defenses. Settlement discussions between the DEP and the named entities have been held, however, no agreement has been reached or is assured.

In 2004, the EPA and Occidental entered into an administrative order on consent (the “2004 AOC”) pursuant to which Tierra (on behalf of Occidental) has agreed to conduct testing and studies to characterize contaminated sediment and biota and evaluate remedial alternatives in the Newark Bay and portions of the Hackensack, the Arthur Kill and Kill van Kull rivers. The initial field work on this study, which includes testing in the Newark Bay, has been substantially completed. Discussions with the EPA regarding additional work that might be required are underway. EPA has issued General Notice Letters to a series of additional parties concerning the contamination of Newark Bay and the work being performed by Tierra under the 2004 AOC. Tierra proposed to the other parties that, for the third stage of the RIFS undertaken in Newark Bay, the costs be allocated on a per capita basis. As of the date of issuance of these financial statements, the parties have not agreed to Tierrás proposal. However, YPF Holdings lacks sufficient information to determine additional costs, if any, it might have with respect to this matter once the final scope of the third stage is approved, as well as the proposed distribution mentioned above.

In December 2005, the DEP issued a directive to Tierra, Maxus and Occidental directing said parties to pay the State of New Jersey’s cost of developing a Source Control Dredge Plan focused on allegedly dioxin-contaminated sediment in the lower six-mile portion of the Passaic River. The development of this plan was estimated by the DEP to cost approximately US$ 2 million. The DEP has advised the recipients that (a) it is engaged in discussions with the EPA regarding the subject matter of the directive, and (b) they are not required to respond to the directive until otherwise notified.

In June 2007, EPA released a draft Focused Feasibility Study (the “FFS”) that outlines several alternatives for remedial action in the lower eight miles of the Passaic River. These alternatives range from no action, which would result in comparatively little cost, to extensive dredging and capping, which according to the draft FFS, EPA estimated could cost from US$ 0.9 billion to US$ 2.3 billion and are all described by EPA as involving proven technologies that could be carried out in the near term, without extensive research. Tierra,

10

Back to Contents

in conjunction with the other parties working under the 2007 AOC, submitted comments on the legal and technical defects of the draft FFS to EPA. In light of these comments, EPA decided to initiate its review and informed that a revised remedy proposal will be forthcoming during the first semester of 2012. Tierra will respond to any further EPA proposal as may be appropriate at that time.

In August 2007, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) sent a letter to a number of entities it alleged have a liability for natural resources damages, including Tierra and Occidental, requesting that the group enters into an agreement to conduct a cooperative assessment of natural resources damages in the Passaic River and Newark Bay. In November 2008, Tierra and Occidental entered into an agreement with the NOAA to fund a portion of the costs it has incurred and to conduct certain assessment activities during 2009. Approximately 20 other PRRP members have also entered into similar agreements. In November 2009, Tierra declined to extend this agreement.

In June 2008, the EPA, Occidental, and Tierra entered into an AOC (“Removal AOC”), pursuant to which Tierra (on behalf of Occidental) will undertake a removal action of sediment from the Passaic River in the vicinity of the former Diamond Alkali facility. This action will result in the removal of approximately 200,000 cubic yards (153,000 cubic meters) of sediment, which will be carried out in two different phases. The first phase, which is scheduled to begin in 2011, encompasses the removal of 40,000 cubic yards (30,600 cubic meters) of sediments and is expected to be completed by the end of 2012. The second phase involves the removal of approximately 160,000 cubic yards (122,400 cubic meters) of sediment. This second phase will start after according with EPA certain development’s aspects related to it. Pursuant to the Removal AOC, the EPA has required the provision of financial assurance in the amount of US$ 80 million for the performance of the removal work. The Removal AOC provides that the initial form of financial assurance is to be provided through a trust fund. YPF Holdings Inc. originally accrued US$ 80 million with respect to this matter. As of June 30, 2011, US$ 32 million has been funded (thereby reducing the accrual in a similar amount) and additional US$ 10 million must be contributed every six months, until the completion of the US$ 80 million. The total amount of required financial assurance may be increased or decreased over time if the anticipated cost of completing the removal work contemplated by the Removal AOC changes. Tierra may request modification of the form and timing of financial assurance for the Removal AOC. During 2010, with EPA approval, letters of credit to provide financial assurance have been issued, in order to avoid the restriction of additional funds. During the removal action, contaminants which may have come from sources other than the former Diamond Alkali plant, will necessarily be removed. YPF Holdings Inc. and its subsidiaries may seek cost recovery from the parties responsible for such contamination, provided contaminants’ origins were not from the Diamond Alkali plant. However, as of the date of issuance of these financial statements, it is not possible to make any predictions regarding the likelihood of success or the funds potentially recoverable in a cost-recovery action.

Additionally, in December 2005, the DEP sued YPF Holdings Inc., Tierra, Maxus and other several companies, besides to Occidental, alleging a contamination supposedly related to dioxin and other “hazardous substances” discharged from Chemicals’ former Newark plant and the contamination of the lower portion of the Passaic River, Newark Bay, other nearby waterways and surrounding areas. The DEP seeks remediation of natural resources damaged and punitive damages and other matters. The defendants have made responsive pleadings and filings. In March 2008, the Court denied motions to dismiss by Occidental Chemical Corporation, Tierra and Maxus. The DEP filed its Second Amended Complaint in April 2008. YPF filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion mentioned previously was denied in August 2008, and the denial was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. Notwithstanding, the Court denied to plaintiffs’ motion to bar third party practice and allowed defendants to file third-party complaints. Third-party claims against approximately 300 companies and governmental entities (including certain municipalities) which could have responsibility in connection with the claim were filed in February 2009. DEP filed its Third Amended Complaint in August 2010, adding Maxus International Energy Company and YPF International S.A. as additional named defendants. In September 2010, Governmental entities of the State of New Jersey and a number of third-party defendants filed their dismissal motions and Maxus and Tierra filed their responses. DEP has not placed dollar amounts on all its claims, but it has (a) contended that a US$ 50

11

Back to Contents

million cap on damages under one of the New Jersey statutes should not be applicable, (b) alleged that it has incurred approximately US$ 118 million in past “cleanup and removal costs”, (c) is seeking an additional award between US$ 10 and US$ 20 million to fund a study to assess natural resource damages, (d) notified Maxus and Tierra’s legal defense team that DEP is preparing financial models of costs and of other economic impacts and, (e) is seeking reimbursement for external legal fees paid. In October 2010, a number of public third-party defendants filed a motion to sever and stay and the DEP joined their motion, which would allow the DEP to proceed against the direct defendants. However, the judge has ruled against this motion in November 2010. Third-party defendants have also brought motions to dismiss, which have been rejected by the assistant judge in January 2011. Some of the mentioned third-parties appealed the decision, but the judge denied such appeal in March 2011. In May 2011, the judge issued Case Management Order XVII (“CMO XVII”), which contains the Trial Plan for the case. This Trial Plan divides the case into two phases, each with its own mini-trials. Phase One will determine liability and Phase Two will determine damages. Following the issuance of CMO XVII, the State of New Jersey and Occidental filed motions for partial summary judgment. The State filed two motions: the first one against Occidental and Maxus on liability under the Spill Act, and against Tierra on liability under the Spill Act. In addition, Occidental filed a motion for partial summary judgment that Maxus owes a duty of contractual indemnity to Occidental for liabilities under the Spill Act. At a hearing that took place on July 15, 2011, the judge ruled that, although the discharge of hazardous substances by Chemicals has been proved, liability allegation can not be made if the nexus between any discharge and the alleged damage is not established.

As of June 30, 2011, there are approximately 417 accrued, comprising the estimated costs for studies, the YPF Holdings Inc.’s best estimate of the cash flows it could incur in connection with remediation activities considering the studies performed by Tierra, and the estimated costs related to the agreement, as well as certain other matters related to Passaic River and the Newark Bay. However, it is possible that other works, including interim remedial measures, may be ordered. In addition, the development of new information on the imposition of natural resource damages, or remedial actions differing from the scenarios that YPF Holdings Inc. has evaluated could result in additional costs to the amount currently accrued.

The DEP, Tierra and Occidental, as successor to Chemicals, signed an administrative consent order with the DEP in 1990 for investigation and remediation work at 40 chromite ore sites in Hudson and Essex Counties alleged to be impacted by the Kearny Plant operations.

Tierra, on behalf of Occidental, is presently performing the work and funding Occidental’s share of the cost of investigation and remediation of these sites. In addition, financial assurance has been provided in the amount of US$ 20 million for performance of the work. The ultimate cost of remediation is uncertain. Tierra submitted its remedial investigation reports to the DEP in 2001, and the DEP continues to review the report.

Additionally, in May 2005, the DEP took two actions in connection with the chrome sites in Hudson and Essex Counties. First, the DEP issued a directive to Maxus, Occidental and two other chromium manufacturers directing them to arrange for the cleanup of chromite ore residue at three sites in New Jersey City and the conduct of a study by paying the DEP a total of US$ 20 million. While YPF Holdings Inc. believes that Maxus is improperly named and there is little or no evidence that Chemicals’ chromite ore residue was sent to any of these sites, the DEP claims these companies are jointly and severally liable without regard to fault. Second, the State of New Jersey filed a lawsuit against Occidental and two other entities seeking, among other things, cleanup of various sites where chromite ore processing residue is allegedly located, recovery of past costs incurred by the state at such sites (including in excess of US$ 2 million allegedly spent for investigations and studies) and, with respect to certain costs at 18 sites,

12

Back to Contents

treble damages. The DEP claims that the defendants are jointly and severally liable, without regard to fault, for much of the damages alleged. In February 2008, the parties reached an agreement in principle, for which Tierra, on behalf of Occidental, will pay US$ 5 million and will perform remediation works in three sites, with a total cost of approximately US$ 2 million. This agreement in principle has been memorialized in a draft Consent Judgment between and among DEP, Occidental and two parties, which was published in the New Jersey Register on June 20, 2011 and is waiting for final approval.

In November 2005, several environmental groups sent a notice of intent to sue the owners of the properties adjacent to the former Kearny Plant (the “adjacent property”), including among others Tierra, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The stated purpose of the lawsuit, if filed, would be to require the noticed parties to carry out measures to abate alleged endangerments to health and the environment emanating from the Adjacent Property. The parties have entered into an agreement that addresses the concerns of the environmental groups, and these groups have agreed, at least for now, not to file suit.

Pursuant to a request of the DEP, in the second half of 2006, Tierra and other parties tested the sediments in a portion of the Hackensack River near the former Kearny Plant. Tierra has submitted work plans for additional sampling requested by the DEP and is presently awaiting DEP comments.

In March 2008, the DEP approved an interim response action plan for work to be performed at the Kearny Plant by Tierra and the adjacent property by Tierra in conjunction with other parties. As of the date of issuance of these financial statements, work on the interim response action has begun. This adjacent property was listed by EPA on the National Priority List in 2007. In July 2010, EPA notified Tierra, along with three other parties, which are considered potentially responsible for this adjacent property and requested to conduct a RIFS for the site. The parties have responded and are awaiting discussion with the EPA as to the scope of activities. At this time, it is unknown if work beyond what was agreed to with the DEP will be required.

As of June 30, 2011, there are approximately 86 accrued in connection with the foregoing chrome-related matters. The study of the levels of chromium has not been finalized, and the DEP is still reviewing the proposed actions. The cost of addressing these chrome-related matters could increase depending upon the final soil actions, the DEP’s response to Tierra’s reports and other developments.

Over fifteen years ago, the former Painesville Works site was proposed for listing on the national Priority List under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”); however, the EPA has stated that the site will not be listed so long as it is satisfactorily addressed pursuant to the Director’s Order and OEPA’s programs. As of the date of issuance of these financial statements, the site has not been listed. YPF Holdings Inc. has accrued a total of 59 as of June 30, 2011 for its estimated share of the cost to perform the RIFS, the remediation work and other operation and maintenance activities at this site. The scope and nature of any further investigation or remediation that may be required cannot be determined at this time; however, as the RIFS progresses, YPF Holdings Inc. will continuously assess the condition of the Painesville’s plants works site and make any required changes, including additions, to its accrual as may be necessary.

Other Sites. Pursuant to settlement agreements with the Port of Houston Authority and other parties, Tierra and Maxus are participating (on behalf of Chemicals) in the remediation of property required Chemicals’

13

Back to Contents

former Greens Bayou facility where DDT and certain other chemicals were manufactured. Additionally, in 2007 the parties have reached an agreement with the Federal and State Natural Resources Trustees concerning natural resources damages. In 2008, the Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment was approved, specifying the restoration projects to be implemented.
During the first semester of 2011, Tierra negotiated, on behalf of Occidental, a draft Consent Decree with governmental agencies of the United States and Texas addressing natural resource damages at the Greens Bayou Site. This Consent Decree, when signed, will incorporate by reference the Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment which specifies the restoration projects to be implemented. Although the primary work was largely finished in 2009, some follow-up activities and operation and maintenance remain pending. As of June 30, 2011, YPF Holdings Inc. has accrued 18 for its estimated share of remediation activities associated with Greens Bayou facility.

In June 2005, the EPA designated Maxus as a PRP at the Milwaukee Solvay Coke & Gas site in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The basis for this designation is Maxus alleged status as the successor to Pickands Mather & Co. and Milwaukee Solvay Coke Co., companies that the EPA has asserted are former owners or operators of such site. Preliminary works in connection with the RIFS of this site commenced in the second half of 2006. YPF Holdings Inc. has accrued 7 as of June 30, 2011 for its estimated share of the costs of the RIFS. YPF Holdings Inc. lacks sufficient information to determine additional costs, if any, it might have in respect of this site.

Maxus has agreed to defend Occidental, as successor to Chemicals, in respect of the Malone Services Company Superfund site in Galveston County, Texas. This site is a former waste disposal site where Chemicals is alleged to have sent waste products prior to September 1986. It is subject of enforcement activities by the EPA. Although Occidental is one of many PRPs that have been identified and have agreed to an AOC, Tierra (which is handling this matter on behalf of Maxus) presently believes the degree of Occidental’s alleged involvement as successor to Chemicals is relatively small.

Chemicals has also been designated as a PRP with respect to a number of third party sites where hazardous substances from Chemicals’ plant operations allegedly were disposed or have come to be located. At several of these, Chemicals has no known relationship. Although PRPs are typically jointly and severally liable for the cost of investigations, cleanups and other response costs, each has the right of contribution from other PRPs and, as a practical matter, cost sharing by PRPs is usually effected by agreement among them. As of June 30, 2011, YPF Holdings Inc. has accrued approximately 2 in connection with its estimated share of costs related to certain sites and the ultimate cost of other sites cannot be estimated at the present time.

In 2002, Occidental sued Maxus and Tierra in state court in Dallas, Texas seeking a declaration that Maxus and Tierra have the obligation under the agreement pursuant to which Maxus sold Chemicals to Occidental to defend and indemnify Occidental from and against certain historical obligations of Chemicals, notwithstanding the fact that said agreement contains a twelve-year cut-off for defense and indemnity

14

Back to Contents

obligations with respect to most litigation. Tierra was dismissed as a party, and the matter was tried in May 2006. The trial court decided that the twelve-year cut-off period did not apply and entered judgment against Maxus. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in February 2008. Maxus has petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for review. This lawsuit was denied. This decision will require Maxus to accept responsibility of various matters which it has refused indemnification since 1998 which could result in the incurrence of costs in addition to YPF Holdings Inc.’s current accruals for this matter. Maxus has paid approximately US$ 17 million to Occidental, and remains in discussions with Occidental regarding additional costs for US$ 0.3 million. Most of the claims that had been rejected by Maxus based on the twelve-year cut-off period, were related to “Agent Orange”. All pending Agent Orange litigation was dismissed in December 2009, and although it is possible that further claims may be filed by unknown parties in the future, no further significant liability is anticipated. Additionally, the remaining claims received and refused consist primarily of claims of potential personal injury from exposure to vinyl chloride monomer (“VCM”), and other chemicals, although they are not expected to result in significant liability. However, the declaratory judgment includes liability for claims arising in the future, if any, related to this matters, which are currently unknown as of the date of issuance of these financial statements, and if such claims arise, they could result in additional liabilities for Maxus. As of June 30, 2011 YPF Holdings Inc. has accrued approximately 1 in respect to these matters.

In March 2005, Maxus agreed to defend Occidental, as successor to Chemicals, in respect of an action seeking the contribution of costs incurred in connection with the remediation of the Turtle Bayou waste disposal site in Liberty County, Texas. The plaintiffs alleged that certain wastes attributable to Chemicals found their way to the Turtle Bayou site. Trial for this matter was bifurcated, and in the liability phase Occidental and other parties were found severally, and not jointly, liable for waste products disposed of at this site. Trial in the allocation phase of this matter was completed in the second quarter of 2007, and following post judgment motions, the court entered a decision setting Occidental’s liability at 15.96% of the past and future costs to be incurred by one of the plaintiffs. Maxus appealed this matter. In June 2010, the Court of Appeals ruled that the District Court had committed errors in the admission of certain documents, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. Maxus took the position that the exclusion of the evidence should reduce Occidentaĺs allocation by as much as 50%. The District Court issued its Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in January 2011, requiring Maxus to pay, on behalf of Occidental, 15.86% of the past and future costs to be incurred by one of the plaintiffs. On behalf of Occidental, Maxus filed its notice of appeal, which remains pending. As of June 30, 2011, YPF Holdings Inc. has accrued 16 in respect of this matter.

YPF Holdings Inc., including its subsidiaries, is a party to various other lawsuits and environmental situations, the outcomes of which are not expected to have a material adverse effect on YPF’s financial condition or its future results of operations. YPF Holdings Inc. accruals legal contingences and environmental situations that are probable and can be reasonably estimated.

The Company organizes its reporting structure into four segments which comprise: the exploration and production, including contractual purchases of natural gas and crude oil purchases arising from service contracts and concession obligations, as well as crude oil intersegment sales, natural gas and its derivatives sales and electric power generation (“Exploration and Production”); the refining, transport, purchase and marketing of crude oil and refined products (“Refining and Marketing”); the petrochemical operations (“Chemical”); and other activities, not falling into these categories, are classified under “Corporate and Other”, which principally includes corporate administration costs and construction activities.

Operating income (loss) and assets for each segment have been determined after intersegment adjustments.

15

Back to Contents

Export sales, net of withholdings taxes, for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 were 3,435 and 3,076, respectively. Export sales were mainly to the United States of America and Brazil.

16

Back to Contents

English translation of the financial statements originally filed in Spanish with the Argentine Securities Commission (“CNV”), except for the inclusion of Note 12 to the primary financial statements in the English translation.
In case of discrepancy, the financial statements filed with the CNV prevail over this translation.

(amounts expressed in million of Argentine pesos – Note 1.a to the primary financial statements)
(The financial statements as of June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2010 are unaudited)

17

Back to Contents

English translation of the financial statements originally filed in Spanish with the Argentine Securities Commission (“CNV”), except for the inclusion of Note 12 to the primary financial statements in the English translation.
In case of discrepancy, the financial statements filed with the CNV prevail over this translation.

(amounts expressed in million of Argentine pesos – Note 1.a to the primary financial statements)
(The financial statements as of June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2010 are unaudited)

18

Back to Contents

English translation of the financial statements originally filed in Spanish with the Argentine Securities Commission (“CNV”), except for the inclusion of Note 12 to the primary financial statements in the English translation.
In case of discrepancy, the financial statements filed with the CNV prevail over this translation.

(amounts expressed in million of Argentine pesos – Note 1.a)
(The financial statements as of June 30, 2011 are unaudited)

Notes 1 to 12 and the accompanying exhibits A, C, E, F, G and H and Schedule I
are an integral part of these statements.

19

Back to Contents

English translation of the financial statements originally filed in Spanish with the Argentine Securities Commission (“CNV”), except for the inclusion of Note 12 to the primary financial statements in the English translation.
In case of discrepancy, the financial statements filed with the CNV prevail over this translation.

(amounts expressed in million of Argentine pesos, except for per share amounts in Argentine pesos – Note 1.a)
(The financial statements as of June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2010, are unaudited)