Corporate case law

Pardini, Fabián c/ Compañía Fredel s/ ordinario (National Commercial Court of Appeals, Chamber C, 15/08/2006)

Whether the corporate veil could be pierced and damages awarded for harm caused by abusive corporate conduct. The Commercial Court of Appeals treated non-opposability as an exceptional remedy and linked its availability to proof both of misuse of the entity and of the specific harm caused by that misuse.

CNCom., Sala C15/08/2006

Case caption

«Pardini, Fabián c/ Compañía Fredel s/ ordinario»

What was at issue

Whether the corporate veil could be pierced and damages awarded for harm caused by abusive corporate conduct.

What was decided

The Commercial Court of Appeals treated non-opposability as an exceptional remedy and linked its availability to proof both of misuse of the entity and of the specific harm caused by that misuse.

Extractable criterion

The Commercial Court of Appeals treated non-opposability as an exceptional remedy and linked its availability to proof both of misuse of the entity and of the specific harm caused by that misuse.
The holding should be read in light of the legal interest protected in the area of piercing the corporate veil, 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, «Pardini, Fabián c/ Compañía Fredel s/ ordinario», 15/08/2006 — Jurisprudencia societaria y comercial

Practical application

It provides a practical framework for the relationship among Section 54 of the LGS, causation, and the quantification of damages.

Frequently asked questions

What is the main takeaway from the case?

The Commercial Court of Appeals treated non-opposability as an exceptional remedy and linked its availability to proof both of misuse of the entity and of the specific harm caused by that misuse.

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 corporate veil could be pierced and damages awarded for harm caused by abusive corporate conduct.

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