Skip to content

BAUEN, day 60

The reader will be able to discern a wide incongruity in the dates. Not only the last, in which Mercoteles (which is to say, the front men of the Iurcoviches) appears before the court, which “understands” the bankruptcy of Solari SA three and a half years after having acquired ownership. There’s something much more serious, which we will put in words that the judge Paula Hualde herself used in her finding of first instance on July 20, 2007, in an observation which, in the end, she seemed to give no importance:

It should be observed that, as was pointed out in point III e), Bauen SACIC sold the property to Mercoteles SA on July 25 of 2001, which is to say, prior to it being available for restitution to whom already appeared as registered owner.1

In relation to this, Gallardo’s report puts the sale of the hotel to Mercoteles on June 25 of 2001, hardly five days after the founding of the business. Gallardo says in his complaint:

(…) a document in our power, a copy of a domain report corresponding to the 8th of November, 2005, where the sale of the property in question is documented as dated the 25 of June, 2001 (Attachment I), when, according to the resolution of V.S. mentioned in the previous point, documentation is presented from the 22 of March, 2006 (five years later), in which the sale is recorded as being carried out July 25, 2001, from which ownership by Mercoteles SA arises.2

Furthermore, the Iurcoviches themselves tacitly admitted the fact in their own chronology which, without giving exact dates, only the months, puts the sale of the hotel to Mercoteles SA in July of 2001, and the restitution of the domain—until that moment, under the control of Solari SA—in August. The misrepresentation is that that the restitution was “to its domain owner, Mercoteles SA,”3 when really, the restitution was to Bauen SA, as established in the finding of the judge herself.

So, Iurcovich sold a hotel he did not own to Mercoteles, which is to say himself, which was only reinstated a month or two later, according to the dates available. And then he only made it known to the bankruptcy court nearly four years later. He hid the sale from the knowledge of the court, with no consequence, since the judge accepted the purchase as valid. If we take a different view of this, and we suppose that Mercoteles really was a different company (which it does not appear to be, when we observe the composition and progressive changes of its directors up to the present day), it is also noteworthy how this firm goes ahead and buys a property that the seller could not document was his, since it was only a month later that the judge returned to him the rights that were still under Solari’s power.

  1. 1.a Inst. Com. no. 9, Sec. n.° 18, “Solari SA s/ breaks (indirect),” 69.699 , 20 July of 2007, ruling, fs. 7
  2. Complaint of the 13 July of 2012 of the Adjunct Public Defender of the Advocacy General of the City of Buenos Aires, Roberto Andrés Gallardo, on file labeled ““Solari SA s/ quiebra (indirecta)”, 69.699 filed in Juz. 1.a Inst. Com. no. 9, Sec. n.° 18.
  3. Website of propaganda mounted by the Iurcovich group: [no longer working]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *