Company: TNRSF
Filing Date: 2025-10-30
Form Type: 6-K
Source: 0001171843-25-006841
Chunk: 20

Company: TENARIS SA
Filing Date: 2025-10-30
Form: 6-K
Chunk 20
---
 the January 2012 acquisition of Usiminas |

The Company is a party to a longstanding lawsuit filed in Brazil by Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional (“CSN”), and various entities affiliated with CSN against the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary Confab and three subsidiaries of Ternium, all of which compose the T/T Group under the Usiminas shareholders agreement. The entities named in the CSN lawsuit had acquired participations in Usiminas in January 2012. The CSN lawsuit alleges that, under applicable Brazilian laws and rules, the acquirers were required to launch a tag-along tender offer to all non-controlling holders of Usiminas ordinary shares for a price per share equal to 80% of the price per share paid in such acquisition, or BRL28.8, and sought an order to compel the acquirers to launch an offer at that price plus interest. If so ordered, the offer would need to be made to 182,609,851 ordinary shares of Usiminas not belonging to Usiminas’ control
group. Confab’s share in the offer would be 17.9%.

On September 23, 2013, the first instance court dismissed the CSN lawsuit, and on February 8, 2017, the court of appeals maintained the understanding of the first instance court. On August 18, 2017, CSN filed an appeal to the Superior Court of Justice (“SCJ”) seeking the review and reversal of the decision issued by the Court of Appeals. On September 10, 2019, the SCJ declared CSN’s appeal admissible. On March 7, 2023, the SCJ, by majority vote, rejected CSN’s appeal.

| 19 |

CSN made several submissions in connection with the SCJ March 7, 2023 decision, including a motion for clarification that challenged the merits of the SCJ decision. Decisions at the SCJ are adopted by majority vote. At an October 17, 2023 session, two justices of the SCJ voted in favor of remanding the case to the first instance for it to be retried following production and assessment of the new evidence, and two justices of the SCJ voted, without requiring any further evidence, in favor of granting CSN’s motion for clarification and reversing the March 7, 2023 decision that rejected CSN’s appeal; because the fifth member of SCJ excused himself from voting, a justice