The Court of Santa Fe admitted a complaint “of unconstitutionality” in the Vicentin contest

A complaint “for unconstitutionality” filed by a group of 73 creditors of the agro-exporter Vicentin, in bankruptcy proceedings for more than 4 years, was accepted by 5 of 6 votes in the Supreme Court of Justice of Santa Fe, and states The approval that the Reconquista Court of Appeals had established last March was suspended.

Judges Daniel Erbetta, Rafael Gutiérrez, Roberto Falistocco, Mario Netri and Eduardo Spuler decided to “admit the complaint filed” by Comodities SA, on behalf of the Vicentin Granary Creditors Trust, while María Angélica Gastaldi voted in dissent.

According to those favored by this ruling, “this will allow for an in-depth analysis” of what they consider “a mega-scam perpetrated by Vicentin and his directors… causing profound harm and suffering to the true victims of the contest.”

They highlighted that “the highest court indicated that the application is sufficiently founded and the need to carry out a constitutional treatment of the homologous ruling and, consequently, of the bankruptcy proposal, is important, since situations are exposed that may constitute hypotheses of unconstitutionality.”

It was considered that “Comodities SA based its allegations on the alleged restriction of rights and constitutional guarantees that the Court would have incurred” and in the challenging material it states that the bankruptcy regime is based on the principle of par conditio creditorum, which requires that creditors participate equally in the distribution of losses.”

In that sense, “in collective execution processes this axiom operates in two ways: on the one hand, it regulates the relationship of the debtor with his creditors, preventing him from granting advantages to some to the detriment of others and, on the other, it acts on the relationship of creditors among themselves, by prohibiting them from taking advantage of each other within the scope of the bankruptcy.”

He also stated that “Vicentin SAIC did not make use of any of the legal alternatives provided to mitigate the aforementioned principle and that, instead, it offered all unsecured creditors gathered in a single category an equal payment of US$30,000 (US dollars). thirty thousand) – or a lesser verified sum – without distinction regarding the amount of their credits, to which – they later allege – payments would be added pro rata and subject to eventual contingencies.”

Thus, “creditors with sums identical to or less than the amount referred to would obtain satisfaction of all of their credits in a single payment; while those who have larger debts would suffer a substantial reduction, receiving – he says – (in installments) in many cases no more than 15% (fifteen percent) net in twelve years.

For this reason, the Granary Creditors Trust believes that “a crucial step has been taken to avoid the validation of this illegal act and prevent an illegal debt relief that would only favor the scrapping of the largest agro-exporter of Argentine capital.”

The Court accepted the appeal of unconstitutionality and ordered that “the Presidency order the elevation of the main proceedings and issue the corresponding paperwork.” In other words, that the approval of the bankruptcy be reviewed, which once again places a pall of uncertainty on the resolution of this matter, which directly involves more than 1,500 creditors for a certified debt of 1,350 million dollars.

All in all, this plot captured the massive attention of public opinion. In the midst of the pandemic, during the winter of 2020 it took millions of people to the streets in different cities, in rejection of the intervention of the agro-exporter promoted by the government of Alberto Fernández.

The alternative vision, endorsed by various representatives of the agro-industrial community, by entities of the affected region, and in this case by Judge Gastaldi, interprets that the aforementioned disagreement in the minority “exceeds the restricted scope provided for normatively for the control of constitutionality that corresponds to this Court.”