Company: TCMFF
Filing Date: 2025-05-19
Form Type: 6-K
Source: 0001104659-25-050264
Chunk: 85

Company: TELECOM ARGENTINA SA
Filing Date: 2025-05-19
Form: 6-K
Chunk 85
---
 objections and approved ENTel’s supplementary interest settlement of 1,872 million pesos as of
March 11, 2021, with the court costs of both instances to be borne by TASA.

TASA then filed a Federal Extraordinary Appeal
against the judgment of the Court of Appeals of October 7, 2021, which has not yet been resolved. Nevertheless, to avoid potential
enforcement actions, on December 28, 2021, TASA paid the amount of 2,392 million pesos, covering the outstanding balance owed to
ENTel as per the Court of Appeals’ ruling, updated to that date. This payment was made under an express reservation of rights. Later,
all pending appeals were dismissed.

Based on the information available to date, the
terms of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the deposits made on December 29, 2020, March 11, 2021, and December 28,
2021 to pay the principal and interest owed in the litigations, and the subsequent payment of the fees of the professionals involved in
the case, TMA maintains a provision of ARS 133 million to cover probable losses relating to court fees.

Profit-sharing bonds (“PSB”)

Several legal actions have been brought by employees
and former employees of TASA, a company now merged with TMA, against the Argentine government and TASA, requesting that Decree No. 395/92,
which expressly exempted TASA and Telecom Argentina S.A. from issuing the PSB provided for in Law No. 23,696, be declared unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs have also claimed compensation for the alleged damages they have suffered because such bonds have not been issued.

In August 2008, the Supreme Court of Justice
of the Nation, in the case "Gentini, Jorge v. NATIONAL GOVERNMENT", by a majority vote, ruled Decree No. 395/92, which
set forth that TASA was not under the obligation to issue the PSB established in Law No. 23,696 unconstitutional, and upheld the
claim of the 20 plaintiffs for damages. The Supreme Court ruled that the judges of a lower court, in this case, the National Court of
Appeals on Labor Matters, should determine the nature and extent of the liability of each defendant, namely, the National Government and
TASA. In April 2009, TASA was notified of the ruling by the Court of Appeals, which held TASA jointly and