Corporate case law

Laffont, Jorge R. y otro c/ Yosemite S.A. y otro (National Commercial Court of Appeals, Chamber C, 23/08/2006)

The scope of separate legal personality and the requirements for disregarding it where the corporate structure itself was challenged. The Commercial Court of Appeals reaffirmed that a company’s separate legal personality cannot be disregarded merely because doing so would be convenient to a litigant: non-opposability requires concrete circumstances showing an abusive, fraudulent, or improper use of the entity.

CNCom., Sala C23/08/2006

Case caption

«Laffont, Jorge R. y otro c/ Yosemite S.A. y otro»

What was at issue

The scope of separate legal personality and the requirements for disregarding it where the corporate structure itself was challenged.

What was decided

The Commercial Court of Appeals reaffirmed that a company’s separate legal personality cannot be disregarded merely because doing so would be convenient to a litigant: non-opposability requires concrete circumstances showing an abusive, fraudulent, or improper use of the entity.

Extractable criterion

The Commercial Court of Appeals reaffirmed that a company’s separate legal personality cannot be disregarded merely because doing so would be convenient to a litigant: non-opposability requires concrete circumstances showing an abusive, fraudulent, or improper use of the entity.
The holding should be read in light of the legal interest protected in the area of legal personality, 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, «Laffont, Jorge R. y otro c/ Yosemite S.A. y otro», 23/08/2006 — Jurisprudencia societaria y comercial

Practical application

It is useful both as a defense against automatic attempts to extend liability and as an evidentiary guide for a party seeking to pierce the corporate veil.

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 scope of separate legal personality and the requirements for disregarding it where the corporate structure itself was challenged.

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