The Supreme Court of Santa Fe revoked the approval of the preventive agreement of Vicentin

agrohoy.ar

Factuality

Ownership

On the afternoon of yesterday, after hearing the ruling of the Supreme Court of Santa Fe, which destroyed the approval of the Preventive Agreement that last March the Chamber of Reconquista had resolved, several meetings of the company's directors with their lawyers and accountants analyzing the steps to be taken

opisantacruz.com.ar

Factuality

Ownership

The Supreme Court of Justice of Santa Fe rejected the approval of the creditors’ contest of the agro-industrial company Vicentin, after accepting an appeal for unconstitutionality filed by Commodities S.A., one of the creditors. In its decision, the court declared “the appeal for unconstitutionality and, consequently, annulled the contested judgment with the above-mentioned scope.” In addition, it ordered “to refer the orders to the subrogating …

RosarioPlus

Factuality

Ownership

News with personality

elciudadanoweb.com

Factuality

Ownership

The Supreme Court of Justice of Santa Fe declared appropriate the constitutional appeal filed against the proposal for payment to the defaulted creditors that had been endorsed by the judges of the Civil, Commercial and Labor Appeals Chamber of Reconquista. Consequently, after an extensive 114-page explanation, which also combines recommendations for the continuation of the proceedings, the judgment annulled the judgment that had been challenged…

Bichos de Campo

Factuality

Ownership

The Supreme Court of Justice of Santa Fe this Tuesday declared appropriate the constitutional appeal requested last year by the company Commodities SA of the Grassi group and thus the approval of the contest of creditors of Vicentin SAIC was deactivated. The Supreme Court’s decision ordered that the orders be referred to the appropriate subrogating court, which would be the Rafaela Civil and Commercial Chamber, “in order that it may issue a new …

Ámbito

Factuality

Ownership

The highest provincial court found that the payment proposal submitted by the company violated the principle of equality between creditors.