Company: CRESW
Filing Date: 2025-10-24
Form Type: 20-F
Source: 0001654954-25-012195
Chunk: 207

Company: CRESUD INC
Filing Date: 2025-10-24
Form: 20-F
Item: Item 4
Chunk 207
---
comiso) of the property owned by Puerto Retiro known as Planta I. The reasons for the Court’s sentence were read on November 11, 2018. From that moment, all the parties might file the appeals. Faced with this fact, an extraordinary appeal was filed, which was rejected, and as a result, a complaint was filed for a rejected appeal, which was granted. 

On July 26, 2024, the CSJN ruled on the various complaints filed by the parties. With respect to the civil action, it upheld the extraordinary appeals filed by Tandanor and the Ministry of Defense and resolved unanimously to: (i) overturn the appealed cassation judgment regarding the statute of limitations of the civil action (ordering a new ruling based on the doctrine of arbitrariness of judgments); and (ii) confirm the forfeiture of Plant I, although ordering its restitution to Tandanor instead of to the Argentine Government, clarifying that the forfeiture itself was upheld. While the CSJN clarified that its decision does not imply addressing the merits of the civil action claim, it did order that the competent Court issue a new resolution taking into account the defenses raised by Tandanor and the Ministry of Defense in their responses to the statute of limitations objection, particularly regarding the date on which the limitation period began to run. As a result, the case was assigned to Chamber IV of the Federal Criminal Cassation Court, which reconstituted its members in order to issue a new judgment in compliance with the CSJN’s decision. Judges Carvallo and Borinsky recused themselves, being replaced by Judges Yacobucci and Barroetaveña. Judge Gustavo Hornos did not recuse himself from continuing to intervene in the case, despite having participated in the ruling that the CSJN overturned. In light of this, Puerto Retiro S.A. challenged Judge Hornos for objective cause. Chamber IV of the Court rejected the recusal motion. Consequently, an extraordinary federal appeal was filed against such decision, which was rejected by judgment rendered and notified on March 28, 2025. Against such ruling, within the legal term, a complaint appeal was filed for denial of the extraordinary appeal, which as of the date hereof remains pending.

102

In parallel, on May 26, 2025, a hearing was held under Articles 465 (last paragraph) and 468 of the Argentine Criminal Procedure Code, where the parties presented their arguments. Finally, on June 24, 202