Corporate case law

Institutos Médicos Antártida s/ quiebra s/ incidente de verificación (R.A.F. y L.R.H. de F.) (Supreme Court of Argentina, 26/03/2019)

Whether the statutory insolvency priority regime could be applied without adjustment to the claim of a person with a disability in a situation of extreme vulnerability. The Supreme Court afforded priority protection to the claim, setting aside the rigidity of the statutory scheme in the particular case in order to harmonize it with constitutional and treaty-based duties of heightened protection.

CSJN26/03/2019

Case caption

«Institutos Médicos Antártida s/ quiebra s/ incidente de verificación (R.A.F. y L.R.H. de F.)»

What was at issue

Whether the statutory insolvency priority regime could be applied without adjustment to the claim of a person with a disability in a situation of extreme vulnerability.

What was decided

The Supreme Court afforded priority protection to the claim, setting aside the rigidity of the statutory scheme in the particular case in order to harmonize it with constitutional and treaty-based duties of heightened protection.

Extractable criterion

The Supreme Court afforded priority protection to the claim, setting aside the rigidity of the statutory scheme in the particular case in order to harmonize it with constitutional and treaty-based duties of heightened protection.
The holding should be read in light of the legal interest protected in the area of priorities and vulnerability, 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: CSJN, «Institutos Médicos Antártida s/ quiebra s/ incidente de verificación (R.A.F. y L.R.H. de F.)», 26/03/2019 — Jurisprudencia societaria y comercial

Practical application

It is a fundamental case on the constitutionalization of insolvency law.

Frequently asked questions

What is the main takeaway from the case?

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: Whether the statutory insolvency priority regime could be applied without adjustment to the claim of a person with a disability in a situation of extreme vulnerability.

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