3 Nov 2014 17:07
GRUPO CLARIN S.A.
Court Grants Interim Injunction
On 31 October 2014, Grupo Clarín S.A. (the "Company") informed the Argentine Securities Commission and the Buenos Aires Stock Exchange that the Federal Civil and Commercial Court No. 1 had granted an interim injunction (medida precautelar) in re "Grupo Clarín S.A. and others v. National State and other re/ incidental procedure relating to appeal" File No. 7263/2012, whereby, among other things, the court ordered defendants to abstain from performing, directly or through third parties, any action in connection with the ex officio divestiture procedure that was ordered by AFSCA, until decision is rendered with respect to the injunction requested by the Company.
Attached below is a free translation of the relevant sections of the decision rendered by the Federal Civil and Commercial Court No. 1.
Enquiries:
In Buenos Aires:
Alfredo Marín/Agustín Medina Manson
Grupo Clarín
Tel: +5411 4309 7215
Email: investors@grupoclarin.com
In London:
Alex Money
Jasford IR
Tel: +44 20 3289 5300
Email: alexm@jasford.com
In New York:
Melanie Carpenter
I-advize Corporate Communications
Tel: +1 212 406 3692
Email: clarin@i-advize.com
FREE TRANSLATION
National Judicial Branch
FEDERAL CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL COURT 1
7263/2012
Incidental Procedure No. 1 - CLAIMANT: GRUPO CLARÍN S.A. AND OTHERS DEFENDANT: NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER re/ INCIDENTAL PROCEDURE RELATING TO APPEAL
Buenos Aires, 31 October 2014.- LB
[Formal introductory paragraphs intentionally omitted]
I. Whereas on pp. 910/941 claimants appear before [the court], represented by their attorney-in-fact, reiterating the injunction request made on pp. 296/320, 620/623, 743 and 767/770, requesting that pursuant to Section 230 of the Procedural Code, [the court] order the suspension of the application of point b) of subsection 3 of Section 161 of Decree No. 1225/10, of Section C "Ex-Officio Transfer", of Chapter III of Annex I of Resolution AFSCA 297/2010 and the ex-officio proceeding set forth in Annex I of AFSCA Resolution 2206/2012, ordering AFSCA to abstain from: i) transferring ex-officio the broadcasting licenses exploited by the shareholders, ii) declaring the expiration of its licenses as a consequence of the failure to transfer [such licenses] ex-officio and/or the breach of the provisions of the challenged laws and ordering the intervention and/or any other measure that prevents its normal administration and the rendering of the audiovisual and internet access services until a final decision is rendered in the case.
They request that their petition be decided upon without prior notice to the defendant, and in the event that such notice is ordered, they request an interim injunction (medida precautelar) or preliminary injunction without application of the time limit set forth under Section 4 of Law No. 26,854; rather, that the injuction be granted until the decision that considers the injunction is rendered and notified (as per p. 910, reverse side).
Claimants submit the documentation, which is glossed over on pp. 777/909.
II.- With respect to the matter of the unconstitutionality of Section 4 of Law No. 26,854, since it has already been the object of a decision rendered by the undersigned, which decision is final, [this court should] not decide on the matter. Therefore, we hereby reject the requested petition.
III. Given the injunction that was requested, and adopting the same criterion that was applied in the decision of pp. 531/536, to which I refer for the sake of brevity, we hereby request from the defendants the prior report referred to under Section 4 of Law No. 26,854 together with copy of the filings of pp. 743, 767/770 and 910/940 ad their respective underlying documents. Let them be notified by customary means.
IV.- With respect to the interim measure that is requested, given the provisions of paragraph 3) of subsection 1 of Section 4 of Law No. 26,854 and given the importance of the matter at hand, as well as the state of the facts denounced in the claim, the issuance of an interim injunction requested in the [claimants'] filing is justified. Consequently, we hereby order defendants to abstain from executing, directly or through third parties, any action in connection with the ex officio transfer that was ordered [by AFSCA] until the issuance of the resolution that refers to the requested injunction.
I do not consider it necessary to decide on the alleged unconstitutionality of the term set under paragraph 3) of subsection 1 of Section 4 of Law No. 26,854, because by application of Section 18 of the same law and considering the provisions of Sections 36, subsection 4) and 204 of the Procedural Code, the undersigned has the power to set the term that he deems reasonable, which-as stated-in this case must extend until the issuance of the resolution that refers to the requested injunction.
The duration of an injunction is not, in itself, unconstitutional. Moreover, the brief duration of an injunction is a legitimate aspiration but, in fact, requires in turn that processes end quickly, or, in line with international treaties and case law, in a reasonable term (as per Vallefin, Carlos A., "Injunctions before the State, continuities and breaks" Ed. Ad-Hoc, 2013, p. 142.
IT IS SO DECIDED.
Let this decision be registered and notified.
[illegible signature]