With the company intervened, after a request from the prosecutor Gabriela Bouquín, and the process of “salvataje” or “cramdown”, the Argentine Post controlled by the Macri family, sought to reach the Supreme Court of Justice with an extraordinary appeal to prevent the advancement of said instance that is prior to the bankruptcy of the company. With the rejection of the prosecution and Carlos Zannini as Treasury Attorney to make room for this proposal, the Commercial Chamber He opposed to that claim reach the highest court.
Correo Argentino SA, the firm of the Socma Group, of the Mauricio Macri family, wants to recover the administration of the company intervened at the request of the prosecutor Bouquin, I propose that Zannini supported at the beginning of the year as Treasury Prosecutor.
Amid a dispute with the state, the last of the proposals that the company had made last year to avoid the “cramdown” was rejected. It consisted of the cash deposit of 296 million pesos, 30 days after the agreement was approved. In addition, it offered an update of the interest on the debt, but linked to the payment by the State of some of the lawsuits filed by the Post for the confiscation of the firm in 2003 by Néstor Kirchner.
Given this new offer, the Treasury Office – the body responsible for endorsing the agreement or not – decided to reject it and asked for the intervention that commercial judge Marta Cirulli finally ordered. At the request of Zannini, two weeks ago the extraordinary judicial fair was lifted and the intervener took office.
The measure displaced the Mail administration, something that led to a new claim because the lawyers maintain that the intervention “is not firm” because it was appealed. The intervention was ordered by a proposal from the prosecutor Bouquin that Carlos Zannini replied in a letter, where there was talk of “emptying” the company.
The representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office had indicated that the bankruptcy liabilities “increased”, which could produce “other acts that continue to aggravate the bankruptcy of the bankrupt company, diminish its assets and harm creditors if the” cramdown “fails.
All this resulted in the National Chamber of Commercial Appeals deciding in December 2019 to open a registry to start the salvage process for the company, which if it failed would leave the firm on the brink of bankruptcy. The defense of the Macri family company was opposed.
According to the company, the state “represented on this occasion by Attorney Carlos Zannini, wants to bankrupt the Post Office.” Therefore they insist on justice with a claim against the opening of the rescue. This was opposed days ago by the Treasury Prosecutor, for whom the cramdown “does not generate any grievance for the bankrupt” and in that context they must “reformulate their proposal.”
Consequently, he requested that the request to deal with the extraordinary appeal not be granted, and that the opinion of the intervener be requested. Against this background, Room B of the Commercial Chamber was issued, which rejected that request made by the Macri family company and with which they sought to reach the Supreme Court of Justice.
The cameramen indicated that the argument of the Socma group, where they spoke of “arbitrariness” in light of the decisions taken on the company by the Justice, was not understandable. It is that for the company, an “abuse by the National State” is enabled by letting it “abuse its supposed right and its dominant position, and bankrupt a company with the serious prejudice of all the sectors involved, both suppliers and creditors, and also the personnel who work in it ”.
When analyzing the proposal, the Chamber in harsh terms replied: “The appellant’s speech tries to judge the proceeding of this Appeal, but only shows a different interpretation of the facts analyzed and the conclusions assumed in the decision-making which, beyond of the disagreement that they cause, they find an adequate foundation in the antecedents of the case, which discards the accusation of arbitrariness ”.
At this point, the judges mentioned the lack of agreement regarding the offers made by the Correo SA, all of which were not very convenient for the State, for which reason “both the Executive Power and the recurring authority requested several extensions of deadlines.” Thus, without the Attorney General’s Office accepting the latest improvement made by the bankrupt firm, the judges indicated that by not obtaining “the required legal majorities, so it is fatally necessary to confirm the resolution” adopted.
With this proposal, the opinion of the prosecutor Boquín was supported, which rejected the attempt by Correo SA to oppose the opening of the salvage process, understanding that there was no “claimed arbitrariness”. In his opinion, advancing the appeal to the Court constitutes “a new delaying attempt by the bankrupt to continue prolonging the proceedings of the accused, which at this point can no longer be admitted.”