Company: CRESW
Filing Date: 2025-10-24
Form Type: 20-F
Source: 0001654954-25-012195
Chunk: 372

Company: CRESUD INC
Filing Date: 2025-10-24
Form: 20-F
Item: Item 8
Chunk 372
---
Item 8. Financial Information
A. Audited Consolidated Statements and Other Financial Information

See Item 18 for our Audited Consolidated Financial Statements.

Legal or arbitration proceedings

We are not engaged in any material litigation or arbitration and no material litigation or claim is known to us to be pending or threatened against us, other than those described below.

Litigation with Exagrind S.A.

Exagrind S.A. filed a lawsuit against Inversiones Ganaderas S.A. (IGSA) (a former subsidiary merged with the Company) and Tali Sumaj on claims for damages and losses produced by a fire in one of the Company’s farms, “San Rafael” farm, which is close to Exagrind’s property, Tali Sumaj, in the Province of Catamarca, Argentina. The fire took place on September 6, 2000. There is a lien on the property and Exagrind S.A. requested that the measure be extended with an attachment of bank accounts. This ruling has been challenged and to date the accounts have not been attached. Moreover there is another judicial filed labeled “Exagrind S.A. Estancia San Rafael c/ Inversiones Ganaderas S.A. s/ Incidente de extension de responsabilidad” (147/11) wherein Exagrid S.A. requested an injunction against Cresud, which has not been implemented. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this measure was appealed by Cresud and to date the accounts have not been attached.

In December 2017, the first instance judgment was rendered, pursuant to which, Cresud was sentenced to pay damages to the plaintiff. Notwithstanding, the amount of the damages will be determined at the time of execution of such ruling. On April 4, 2018, the court granted us an appeal. In June 2020 the appeal filed by the company was rejected and from which the following grounds arise 1. That the damaging event was caused by the risk or vice of the thing in light by virtue of the provisions of Section 113 of the previous CC, considering that the risky activity was proven as the creator of the damage, understanding that the risk itself determines the responsibility and with it the danger of generating fire in the field that in his opinion was proven and originated in Tai Sumaj. 2. That the determination of the amount of damage requires an evidentiary point of view, therefore, it is understood that it must be determined at the execution stage, rejecting the appeal of the opponent in this