Company: TCMFF
Filing Date: 2025-05-19
Form Type: 6-K
Source: 0001104659-25-050264
Chunk: 83

Company: TELECOM ARGENTINA SA
Filing Date: 2025-05-19
Form: 6-K
Chunk 83
---
 general terms, the disputed issues were the amounts that TASA collected on behalf of ENTel,
i.e. the consumption charges for telecommunications services provided to ENTel’s customers, whether billed or not, but still unpaid
at the time of privatization. ENTel also contested the commissions that TASA deducted in exchange for billing services and certain accounts
receivable collected by TASA that allegedly belonged to ENTel and had not been transferred to TASA in the privatization process. TASA
answered such claim by arguing that such request was inadmissible, as such settlements had been previously submitted to ENTel’s
Liquidation Commission and were not contested at that time. In 2010, the Court of First Instance ruled in favor of ENTel, holding TASA
responsible for the disputed matters.

After exhausting all available legal remedies,
TASA submitted the account settlements, which were then contested by the national government on behalf of the dissolved ENTel. Since then,
a series of settlement submissions and cross-objections between the parties ensued, along with the intervention of a court-appointed accounting
expert. Following several judicial decisions, the presiding judge rejected TASA’s objections to the settlements presented by the
national government and adopted the calculations made by ENTel and the court-appointed expert. Although this decision was appealed, the
Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in October 2017, largely upholding the settlements submitted by ENTel and the court-appointed
expert but also ordering ENTel to recalculate interest. Specifically, the Court’s resolution accepted certain claims raised by TASA
and ordered the application of a “judicial” interest rate (the average passive rate of the Central Bank of Argentina), which
included a daily capitalization component, rather than the 8% simple annual interest rate set in the privatization terms (which had even
been used by the court-appointed expert and ENTel in their calculations). The Court of Appeals decision exhausted all ordinary legal remedies
available, for which TASA filed an extraordinary appeal, which was rejected in November 2017. TASA has filed a petition in error
(recurso de queja) with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which remains unresolved as of the date hereof. This appeal
did not automatically suspend potential enforcement by ENTel, and on February 22, 2018, ENTel submitted a new calculation of principal
and interest upon request of the judge. However, in April 2018 the presiding judge suspended further proceedings, ordering that the