Tension at Unión: opposition puts board on notice, seeks financial details | OneFootball

The Encuentro Unionista Group formally submitted two letters as a “final extrajudicial notice” addressed to the Board of Directors and the Audit Committee. They demand answers within five business days regarding bounced checks, legal restrictions, and indebtedness.

The political and institutional life of Club Atlético Unión has once again entered a chapter of high tension. The opposition group Encuentro Unionista formally submitted through the filing office a severe notice against the Board of Directors led by the current authorities, claiming a complete lack of response to a request for economic and financial information that had originally been filed on July 22.

According to the opposition group, after more than two months of “institutional silence,” they decided to pursue legal action and formally demand a response within a strict period of five business days.

Key points of the claim

Among the main issues demanded by the grouped members, with supporting documentation, are:

Reservation of action before the IGPJ and the courts

The filed document expressly warns that, if they do not receive a documented and detailed response within the stipulated period, they will consider the institutional channel within the club exhausted.

In that scenario, the group will move forward with complaints before the General Inspection of Legal Entities (IGPJ) of the Province of Santa Fe to request oversight of the club, in addition to evaluating civil actions to determine the personal liability of the directors for any damage to the club’s assets and referring the proceedings to the Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPA) if they detect possible criminal offenses.

They demand an active role from the Audit Committee

At the same time, the group separately notified the Audit Committee. In that document, they demand that the oversight body report what controls, audits, or accounting reviews it carried out over these two months regarding the points raised, emphasizing that “the silence of the administrative body cannot be accompanied by the silence of the body charged with overseeing it”

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇪🇸 here.