Corporate case law

La Central de Oxígeno S.A. (National Commercial Court of Appeals, Chamber C, 25/02/1986)

The possibility of challenging corporate resolutions affected by serious defects involving public policy. The precedent forms part of the line of authority distinguishing relative nullities subject to the special corporate regime from absolute or non-ratifiable nullities that may receive different treatment.

CNCom., Sala C25/02/1986

Case caption

«La Central de Oxígeno S.A.»

What was at issue

The possibility of challenging corporate resolutions affected by serious defects involving public policy.

What was decided

The precedent forms part of the line of authority distinguishing relative nullities subject to the special corporate regime from absolute or non-ratifiable nullities that may receive different treatment.

Extractable criterion

The precedent forms part of the line of authority distinguishing relative nullities subject to the special corporate regime from absolute or non-ratifiable nullities that may receive different treatment.
The holding should be read in light of the legal interest protected in the area of invalidity of shareholders’ meeting resolutions, 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 C, «La Central de Oxígeno S.A.», 25/02/1986 — Jurisprudencia societaria y comercial

Practical application

It is key authority for discussing the relationship between Section 251 of the LGS and absolute nullity.

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: The possibility of challenging corporate resolutions affected by serious defects involving public policy.

The selection was assembled from case-law reporters, university materials on Corporate and Commercial Law, and public sources maintained by courts and government agencies. Sources used for cross-checking include decisions of the Supreme Court of Argentina, materials from the University of Buenos Aires School of Law, public commercial-law case reporters, and official publications.

Doctrinal and practical usefulness was prioritized. Accordingly, historic cases appear alongside more recent decisions. Where the complete date of a precedent was not available in the public reporters consulted, the entry states 'date not stated in the consulted reporter' rather than supplying a date by inference.

Reference web sources consulted: Blasco Schneider, commentary on Supreme Court case 'Cingiale c/ Polledo Agropecuaria'; University of Buenos Aires School of Law materials on Companies, Elements of Commercial Law, and Reorganization and Bankruptcy; the Piaggi-Frick chair's case-law reporter; the Supreme Court of Argentina website; InfoLEG; academic publications; and publicly accessible legal reporters.

This material is provided for informational and academic purposes. It does not replace review of the full text of the decision or legal advice concerning a specific matter.

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