The issue of when and how this sale took place is key, because it is what protects the pretensions of the Iurcoviches and allows them to appear over and over, demanding the eviction of the BAUEN. The deed to the building at Callao 360 appeared in their hands, almost by magic. Recall that when the bankruptcy took place and over the first years of the recovery of the hotel by the workers, these same people apparently had nothing to do with either the bankruptcy or the next buyer.
And who formed Mercoteles, which soon appeared wielding a bill of sale in hand? Supposedly, it was a new company, without any relationship to any of the earlier ones. Iurcovich, according to the “investigation” cited above, recovered the ownwership of the building after Solari’s bankruptcy, when Solari did not finish paying the price. He sold it, in turn, to a third party, Mercoteles. Years later, in 2010, Mercoteles underwent a change of authorities and set up a new home, without making any sales or substantial changes in stockholder composition. It turns out that, according to the Official Bulletin no. 31,973, dated the 26th August, 2010, Hugo Eduardo Iurcovich, son of Marcelo Iurcovich, DNI 11.478.326, Argentine, divorced, with real home on Av. del Liberator 8008, 24th floor, apartment 2, Federal Capital, was director-owner of Mercoteles since the 12th of January, 2006. And according to the Official Bulletin of the day before, the business established its headquarters, according to the Minutes of Directorate of 01/06/2010, on Av. del Liberator, number 8008, 24th floor, the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires. As can be observed, the personal home of Hugo Iurcovich and the headquarters of Mercoteles are the same. It was no longer necessary to keep it hidden.
In reality, the sale of the Bauen to Mercoteles was done within a few days of the formation of the firm. The employees of the bankrupt Solari SA continued working in the tower at Callao 360 and lived with the anguish of the obvious decline of their jobs, fearing the bleak future of unemployment looming over them, which did, in fact, soon find them. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, ownership had gone from a company that had sold a hotel four years earlier to a company that had just been formed and, as the article said, whose real assets were unknown.
As with everything in the history of the Bauen and the Iurcovich group, confusion is the norm. There are discrepancies and different versions of the dates, but they do not alter the heart of the issue. Here, we will use the dates that the bankruptcy judge herself, Paula Hualde, used in the judgment of the trial that ordered the eviction of the cooperative to “return” ownership to Mercoteles SA. This chronology does not coincide exactly with the information provided by two other sources, research by journalist Guillermo Berasategui1 and the criminal complaint made by the then adjunct attorney general of the City of Buenos Aires, Roberto Gallardo.2 However, on the very dates given by the judge, it is clear that the sale is from Iurcovich to Iurcovich at a time when he didn’t have ownwership of the property.