Judge Ramiro Avile Crespohead of the civil and commercial court of the third appointment of Reconquista, Santa Fe, refused to take charge of the bankruptcy of Vicentin, with more than 1,700 creditors and a debt of 1,350 million dollarsconsidered that the judge’s political trial was unsuccessful Fabiano Lorenzini -in office since the beginning of the trial-, who was asked to revoke the excuse he had presented on Friday the 10th, for “moral violence”, after being accused by the lawyer Gustavus Feldmann.
Both magistrates are first instance judges and Avilé Crespo is Lorenzini’s legal surrogate but did not accept the postponement and, “with love and respect,” she asked him to regain control of the cause resolve it based on the importance it has for the creditors who have endorsed Vicentin’s payment plan.
According to the process stipulated by the bankruptcy and bankruptcy law, 1,017 creditors signed the agreement with the proposal; constitute the 62.86% of people, slightly more than what is required by law: a majority greater than 50%”.
The other requirement to progress through resolution towards payment to creditors is based on eligible debt capital. The sum of these 1017 compliances amounts to $66,920,857,373, which implies the 72.82% of the capital, when the law requires a majority greater than 66.6%.
At the end of last year, the Santa Fe Supreme Court of Justice referred the bankruptcy of the agro-export company Vicentin to Lorenzini, head of Civil and Commercial Court No. and paved the way for him payment of the debt, the first instance of which would be a payment of US $30,000 to each of the creditors.
The 7 justices of Santa Fe’s highest court They unanimously rejected the request for avocamiento that one of the creditor firms, Commodities SA, linked to the Grassi brokerage, had presented almost 3 years after the company had declared the cessation of payments. This summons was contested because Commodities SA would have assigned its claim to another company, with which it would have been considered out of practice.
A similar situation occurs with Feldman, the appellant on the jury to prosecute Lorenzini, who represents a group of creditors who did not accept Vicentin’s payment proposal but presented it in a personal capacity, according to Avilé Crespo, who reflected on the fact That “the complaint is filed by a person who is not a party to the case from which the magistrate intends to exempt himself; consequently, the presumed partiality inherent in the apology has no reason to exist, because the presumed partiality is towards the defendant, not towards a citizen unrelated to the trial”.
Avile Crespo’s arguments
Among the central arguments of Avilé Crespo’s resolution, it should be noted that “the aforementioned request for impeachment has not been successful… the Attorney General has not yet ruled on this complaint. This is, We no longer have any elements other than the simple fact that the magistrate who intervened in this case was denounced before the Supreme Court of Justice of our province. Therefore, we do not know the content of said complaint and, even more, we do not yet know whether the prosecution will proceed. In short, the alleged moral violence is not duly accredited”.
And “he let Lorenzini know” that in case he didn’t share his proposal “he would raise the corresponding incident to his superior”.
In this sense, Avilé Crespo considered that “the rights and duties that emanate from our Constitution -applicable both to the magistrate and to every inhabitant and/or citizen- they cannot unnerve the morale of the judge, on the contrary, they are the foundation of temperance and decorum that should govern their actions.”
He warned that “by paying the opposite criterion – which would be accepting an apology or the recusal of magistrates on the basis of a political trial initiated against them – it would constitute a way to falsely select the magistrate who will understand the lawsuit, and this is to the liking of the litigant. In this reasoning, if one party requests impeachment but does not challenge the intervening magistrate, he would still obtain his departure with the excuse of the same”.
And it held that “the litigants would be granted – without further ado – the power to deprive judges of resolving matters within their jurisdiction by the mere filing of the impeachment plea, and this inconsistency cannot be inferred from the will of the legislator. Therefore, the attempted apology must be rejected without further delay.
It is understood that “as a guiding principle in the matter of recusal and excuse of magistrates, the restrictive interpretation must prevail with the purpose that causes begin, develop and conclude before the natural judge. Is that, opposite the power to abstain, there is the constitutional mandate that imposes on the judge the duty to judge”.
In short, Avilé Crespo held that the constitutional right to request a political trial, as the lawyer Gustavo Feldman did, cannot cause a negative emotional state in a magistrate, or an excess of sensitivity or delicacy, because this it is not sufficient to compromise its impartiality and objectivity”..
It underlined that “the plaintiff in the impeachment trial did not act as a representative of the bankrupt’s creditors, but in his own name, and furthermore his person does not present any of the characteristics – creditor or debtor or trustee or liquidator – whether the Law that jurisprudence have determined as the cause of origin of an appeal, therefore even less for the excuse.
He’s taken that into consideration Lorenzini “is the natural judge of the case which – in the end – he meets in a better position to provide answers to questions related to the bankruptcy process as long as the treatment of the accident by the Superior lasts».
and concluded that the “Dantesque” volume. In the words of the magistrate who raised the objection, “the stage in which the bankruptcy procedure is found, as well as the deadlines he himself has already set in the file, and the principles of economy and procedural speed, would make it impractical to deal with over time. ” and formed by this Court”.
Source: Clarin
