Corporate case law

Novo, Daniel c/ Polistor S.R.L. s/ medida precautoria (National Commercial Court No. 3, 28/03/2007)

The availability of suspension of resolutions, judicial intervention, or oversight measures to preserve the company’s functioning while litigation is pending. The court addressed the principle of graduated corporate interim relief: the least intrusive measure capable of effectively preventing the threatened harm should be selected.

JNCom. N° 328/03/2007

Case caption

«Novo, Daniel c/ Polistor S.R.L. s/ medida precautoria»

What was at issue

The availability of suspension of resolutions, judicial intervention, or oversight measures to preserve the company’s functioning while litigation is pending.

What was decided

The court addressed the principle of graduated corporate interim relief: the least intrusive measure capable of effectively preventing the threatened harm should be selected.

Extractable criterion

The court addressed the principle of graduated corporate interim relief: the least intrusive measure capable of effectively preventing the threatened harm should be selected.
The holding should be read in light of the legal interest protected in the area of judicial intervention and interim relief, 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: JNCom. N° 3, «Novo, Daniel c/ Polistor S.R.L. s/ medida precautoria», 28/03/2007 — Jurisprudencia societaria y comercial

Practical application

It is useful for designing proportionate applications for interim relief.

Frequently asked questions

What is the main takeaway from the case?

The court addressed the principle of graduated corporate interim relief: the least intrusive measure capable of effectively preventing the threatened harm should be selected.

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 availability of suspension of resolutions, judicial intervention, or oversight measures to preserve the company’s functioning while litigation is pending.

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