7 Dec 2012 07:00
GRUPO CLARIN S.A.
Court of Appeals extends Injunction
On 6 December 2012, Grupo Clarín S.A. (the "Company") informed the Argentine Securities Commission and the Buenos Aires Stock Exchange that that same afternoon the Company had been served notice of a decision rendered by Chamber 1 of the Federal Court of Appeals on Civil and Commercial Matters in re "Grupo Clarín S.A. and Others re: Injunctions", whereby that court decided to extend the injunction until a final decision is rendered on the merits, so as not to alter significantly the circumstances and to ensure the usefulness, opportunity and efficacy of the decision that is to be rendered on the merits.
The decision also provides that the obligation to divest pursuant to Law No. 26,522 is suspended and the one-year term provided under that law has not started to run its course because it is suspended by the injunction.
Attached is a free translation of the relevant sections of the decision.
Enquiries:
In Buenos Aires:
Alfredo Marín/Agustín Medina Manson
Grupo Clarín
Tel: +5411 4309 7215
Email: investors@grupoclarin.com
In London:
Alex Money/Clare Gallagher
Temple Bar Advisory
Tel: +44 20 7002 1080
Email: clarin@templebaradvisory.com
In New York:
Melanie Carpenter/Peter Majeski
I-advize Corporate Communications
Tel: +1 212 406 3692
Email: clarin@i-advize.com
Free translation
National Judicial Branch
File No. 8836/2009, "GRUPO CLARIN S.A. AND OTHERS RE/ Injunctions"
Buenos Aires, 6 December 2012
WHEREAS:
[We are called to] decide upon the appeals filed by claimant against the decision of pp. 1464/1466 -granted on p. 1558, with its memorial on pp. 1835/1884 and responded on pp. 1985/2003-and against the decision of pp. 1694/1695, the latter granted on p. 1887, substantiated on pp. 1888/1932, the deserved the response of pp. 1968/1983. In order to give a better logical treatment to the matters, the Court will first decide on the request to extend the injunction ordered on 7 December 2009.
Dr. Francisco de las Carreras, said:
[REMARKS INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]
Drs. María Susana Najurieta and Francisco de las Carreras, said:
A) Appeal against the Decision of pp. 1694/1695 rendered on 13/09/2012.
[RECITALS 1 and 2 INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]
3.- In the first place, claimant holds that the injunction is insufficient to guarantee its rights and that it is in grave danger of being deemed to have incurred in breaches and subject to severe sanctions.
The Court understands that this conclusion does not stem from the legal framework that governs this dispute.
In fact, at the present moment, claimant is not under an obligation to adjust its conduct to Section 161 of Law No. 26,522 or to the terms provided under the implementing and supplementary regulations, issued or to be issued as a consequence [of such Section], because, precisely, the application of such rule has been challenged as unconstitutional and its effects have been suspended by the injunction in three judicial instances, including the National Supreme Court.
This means that the claimants have in suspension both their obligation to divest pursuant to Law No. 26,522 -obligation that has been challenged in the main proceedings No. 119/2010-- and the one-year term provided under the law (as supplemented by implementing regulations), which has not started to run its course in relation to [claimants].
And even though the term to conform generally to Law No. 26,522 has expired, with respect to claimants its course is suspended and, consequently, the effects of such expiration are not applicable to claimants precisely due to the effect of the injunction. This means that claimant cannot have incurred in breaches derived from such expiration, and is not exposed, therefore, to its consequences.
[RECITAL 4 INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]
Therefore, and given the unlikelihood of the initial hypothesis on which the High Court grounded its decision to establish a time limit during the course of the process, the Chamber understands that it is correct to grant the request, extending the effectiveness of the injunction until a final decision is rendered on the merits, so as not to alter significantly the circumstances and to ensure the usefulness, opportunity and efficacy of the decision that is to be rendered on the merits […]
B) Appeal against the Decision of pp. 1464/1465
5.- Claimant requested on pp. 1443 / 1463 the extension of the scope of the injunction, so that it may preserve in its fullest sense legally and temporally, the actual situation and rights that existed as of 7/12/2009 over audiovisual communication service licenses, content signals and other assets property of claimants subject to the provisions of Law No. 26,522. [Claimant] also requested the judge to order the National Government to abstain from intervening and/or dispossessing and/or confiscating the licenses and signals of [claimant] and any of the assets necessary to render the service normally.
[RECITALS INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]
Therefore, the Court DECIDES: a) to extend the effectiveness of the injunction under the terms of recitals 3 and 4 of this decision; and b) to dismiss the appeal granted on p. 1558 against the decision of pp. 1464/1465.
Each party is to bear its own costs given the difficulty and the novelty of the matter, the particularities of the case and the result of the appeals (Sections 68, second part, and 71 of the National Code of Civil and Commercial Procedures).
Only the undersigned intervene due to the vacancy of the remaining seat (Section 109 of the National Judiciary Rules).
Let this decision be registered and notified by the Secretary to the parties and to AFSCA […].
/s/ María Susana Najurieta
/s/ Francisco de las Carreras
Commercial and Civil Chamber No. 1
Registered under No. 1506, Vol. 295
Of the Book of Decisions
/s/ Ma. Alejandra Lagomarsino
Secretary