Corporate case law

De Lucía, José c/ Hauser Trading S.A. s/ sumarísimo (National Commercial Court of Appeals, Chamber D, 2016)

Proof and protection of shareholder or member status where ownership and the exercise of corporate rights are disputed. The case emphasizes that a person seeking to exercise corporate rights must adequately prove standing, without prejudice to measures needed to prevent the company itself from frustrating that proof.

CNCom., Sala D2016

Case caption

«De Lucía, José c/ Hauser Trading S.A. s/ sumarísimo»

What was at issue

Proof and protection of shareholder or member status where ownership and the exercise of corporate rights are disputed.

What was decided

The case emphasizes that a person seeking to exercise corporate rights must adequately prove standing, without prejudice to measures needed to prevent the company itself from frustrating that proof.

Extractable criterion

The case emphasizes that a person seeking to exercise corporate rights must adequately prove standing, without prejudice to measures needed to prevent the company itself from frustrating that proof.
The holding should be read in light of the legal interest protected in the area of shareholder or member status, not solely by reference to the documentary form of the act.
Evidence of the specific facts and of their impact on corporate or creditor rights is decisive when applying the precedent’s doctrine to another case.

Citation: CNCom., Sala D, «De Lucía, José c/ Hauser Trading S.A. s/ sumarísimo», 2016 — Jurisprudencia societaria y comercial

Practical application

It is useful in disputes involving share certificates, share registers, and standing.

Frequently asked questions

What is the main takeaway from the case?

The case emphasizes that a person seeking to exercise corporate rights must adequately prove standing, without prejudice to measures needed to prevent the company itself from frustrating that proof.

Does the rule apply automatically today?

No. The current statutory framework and the specific facts must be verified. Historical precedents retain doctrinal value, but later reforms may alter how they apply.

What should be proven in similar litigation?

The relevant corporate or commercial documentation, the parties’ conduct, the specific harm, and the facts connecting that harm to the central issue in the case: Proof and protection of shareholder or member status where ownership and the exercise of corporate rights are disputed.

Informational commentary on a published ruling; it does not constitute advice nor guarantee an outcome. Application to a case depends on its circumstances.

Do you need advice on this matter?

The firm is headquartered in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and advises clients worldwide.

Contact the firm