XML 37 R13.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

8. Contingent liabilities

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2018

The Company has contingent liabilities and is a party to lawsuits that arise from the ordinary course of business. Based on the opinion of its in-house and external legal advisors, the Company’s Management estimates that the outcome of the current contingencies and lawsuits will not result in amounts that either exceed those of the recorded provisions or could be significant with respect to the Company’s financial position or the results of its operations.

Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that there exist contingent obligations and labor, civil and commercial complaints filed against the Company related to legal actions for individual non-significant amounts, which as of December 31, 2018 total $ 1.3 billion, for which a provision has been recorded.

We detail below the nature of the significant judicial proceedings in relation to which, as of December 31, 2018, the Company believes, based on the opinion of its in-house and external legal advisors, there exist grounds for them not to be deemed probable:

Note

8.1 | Civil and commercial proceedings – Consumer claims

- By means of the action filed by Consumidores Financieros Asociación Civil para su Defensa, the following is claimed from the Company:

Ø Reimbursement of the Value Added Tax (VAT) percentage paid on the illegally “widened” taxable basis due to the incorporation of the FNEE. Distribution companies, the defendants, had not paid this tax when CAMMESA invoiced them the electricity purchased for distribution purposes.

Ø Reimbursement of part of the administrative surcharge on “second due date”, in those cases in which payment was made within the time period authorized for such second deadline (14 days) but without distinguishing the effective day of payment.

Ø Application of the “borrowing rate” in case of customer delay in complying with payment obligation, in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 26,361.

On April 22, 2010, the Company answered the complaint and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing (“excepción de falta de legitimación”), requesting, at such opportunity, that a summons be served upon the Federal Government, the AFIP and the ENRE as third-party defendants. Notice of this was served upon the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff’s opposition to the requested summons had not yet been resolved, the proceedings were brought to trial, in response to which edenor filed a motion for reversal with a supplementary appeal. The Court hearing the case granted the motion filed by edenor and ordered that the Federal Government, the AFIP and the ENRE be summoned as third-party defendants, which has already taken place. These proceedings have been joined to those mentioned below. Without prejudice thereto, in the framework of the record of the proceedings, the case has been brought to trial.

By means of the action filed by Asociación de Defensa de derechos de clientes y consumidores (ADDUC) it is requested that the Company be ordered by the Court to reduce or mitigate the default or late payment interest rates charged to customers who pay their bills after the first due date, inasmuch as they violate section 31 of Law 24,240, ordering both the non application of pacts or accords that stipulate the interest rates that are being applied to the users of electricity –their unconstitutional nature– as well as the reimbursement of interest amounts illegally collected from the customers of the service from August 15, 2008 through the date on which the defendant complies with the order to reduce interest. It is also requested that the VAT and any other taxes charged on the portion of the surcharge illegally collected be reimbursed.

On November 11, 2011, the Company answered the complaint and filed a motion to dismiss for both lack of standing to sue (“excepción de falta de legitimación activa”) and the fact that the claims at issue were being litigated in another lawsuit (“excepción de litispendencia”), currently in process, requesting as well that a summons be served upon the ENRE as a third-party defendant. Notice of these pleadings was served upon the plaintiff. Prior to rendering a decision on the motion to dismiss, the Court ordered that the Court in Contentious and Administrative Federal Matters No. 2 – Clerk’s Office No. 3 provide it with the proceedings “Consumidores Financieros Asociación Civil vs Edesur S.A. and Other defendants, for breach of contract”. On April 8, 2014, the Court in Civil and Commercial Federal Matters No. 9 – Clerk’s Office No. 17 admitted the motion to dismiss due to the fact that the claims at issue were being litigated in another lawsuit (“excepción de litispendencia”), and ordered that the proceedings be sent to Federal Court No. 2 – Clerk’s Office No. 3 to be dealt with thereat, thus joining them to the case entitled “consumidores financieros vs Edesur S.A. and other defendants, for breach of contract”. Apart from the fact that the proceedings have been received in the Court that currently hears the case, which continues in process, no significant events have occurred. As indicated in caption a) above, due to the joining of those proceedings to those herein described, these proceedings have been brought to trial.

We detail below the nature of the significant judicial proceedings instituted by the Company as of December 31, 2018, in relation to which an inflow of economic benefits into the Company is deemed probable.

Note

8.2 | Civil and Commercial Proceedings for the Determination of a Claim – Judicial Annulment ENRE Resolution 32/11

- The Company seeks to obtain the judicial annulment of the ENRE’s Resolution that provided the following:

Ø That the Company be fined in the amount of $ 750 thousand due to its failure to comply with the obligations arising from Section 25, sub-sections a, f and g, of the Concession Agreement and Section 27 of Law No. 24,065.

Ø That the Company be fined in the amount of $ 375 thousand due to its failure to comply with the obligations arising from Section 25 of the Concession Agreement and ENRE Resolution No. 905/99.

Ø That the Company be ordered to pay customers as compensation for the power cuts suffered the following amounts: $ 180 to each small-demand residential customer (T1R) who suffered power cuts that lasted more than 12 continuous hours, $ 350 to those who suffered power cuts that lasted more than 24 continuous hours, and $ 450 to those who suffered power cuts that lasted more than 48 continuous hours. The resolution stated that such compensation did not include damages to customer facilities and/or appliances, which were to be dealt with in accordance with a specific procedure.

On July 8, 2011, the Company requested that notice of the action be served upon the ENRE, which has effectively taken place. The proceedings are “awaiting resolution” since the date on which the ENRE answered the notice served. Furthermore, on October 28, 2011, the Company filed an appeal (“Recurso de Queja por apelación denegada”) to the CSJN requesting that the appeal dismissed concerning the provisional relief sought and not granted be sustained. On April 24, 2013, the Company was notified of Division I’s decision dated March 21, 2013, pursuant to which the appeal filed by edenor was declared formally inadmissible. On May 3, 2013, the Company filed an ordinary appeal (“Recurso Ordinario de Apelación”) to the CSJN. Additionally, on May 13, 2013, an extraordinary appeal (“Recurso Extraordinario Federal”) was also filed to the same Court. On November 7, 2014, it was notified to the Company that Division I had rejected the ordinary appeal but partially granted the extraordinary appeal, considering for the granting thereof the federal nature of the regulations being challenged and rejecting it in relation to the arbitrariness raised by edenor. Therefore, and within the procedural term granted for such purpose, the Company filed an appeal requesting that the extraordinary appeal dismissed be sustained (“Recurso de Queja por Rec. Extraordinario Denegado”). As of the date of this report, no decision has yet been issued on this regard. However, the course of these proceedings is currently suspended due to the fact that an “Agreement of parties” has been entered into with the ENRE.

At the closing date of the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company made a provision for principal and interest accrued for an amount of $ 57.3 million within the Other non-current liabilities account.

Note

8.3 | Civil and Commercial Proceedings for the Determination of a Claim – Regulatory Liability Claim against the Federal Government

On June 28, 2013, the Company instituted these proceedings for the recognizance of a claim and the related leave to proceed in forma pauperis, both pending in the Federal Court of Original Jurisdiction in Contentious and Administrative Federal Matters No. 11 – Clerk’s Office No. 22, whose purpose is to sue for breach of contract due to the Federal Government’s failure to perform in accordance with the terms of the “Agreement on the Renegotiation of the Concession Agreement” (“Acta Acuerdo de Renegociación del Contrato de Concesion” – the “Adjustment Agreement”) entered into with the Company in 2006, and for damages caused as a result of such breach.

On November 22, 2013, the Company amended the complaint so as to extend it and claim more damages as a consequence of the Federal Government’s omission to perform the obligations under the aforementioned “Adjustment Agreement”. On February 3, 2015, the Court hearing the case ordered that notice of the complaint be served to be answered within the time limit prescribed by law, which was answered by the Federal Government in due time and in proper manner. Subsequently, edenor reported as new event, under the terms of Section 365 of the CPCCN, the issuance by the SEE of Resolution No. 32/15. After notice was served, the Court rejected the treatment thereof as an “event”, holding the Company liable for costs. The Company filed an appeal, which was admitted “with a postponed effect” (i.e. the Appellate Court will grant or reject the appeal when deciding on the granting or rejection of the appeal against final judgment). On October 16, 2015, the Attorney General’s Office requested to borrow the records for a term of 20 days, which were returned on December 1, 2015, in order to control the work done by the state’s attorneys. On December 4, 2015, the Company requested the suspension of the procedural time-limits under the terms of section 157 of the CPCCN, in accordance with the provisions of SEE Resolution No. 32/15, notice of which has been served upon the defendant. On February 16, 2016, the Company reiterated the request due to the revocation of SEE Resolution No. 32/15. At the date of issuance of this report, and by “agreement of the parties”, the procedural time-limits continue to be suspended.

Regarding the motion to litigate in forma pauperis that was filed on July 2, 2013, the discovery period has ended and the period for the parties to put forward their arguments on the merits of the evidence produced has begun. At the date of issuance of these financial statements, the procedural time-limits in this incidental motion, as those in the main proceedings, continue to be suspended.