Supercanal Litigation

GRUPO CLARIN S.A.

Supercanal Litigation

On 17 August 2012, Grupo Clarín S.A. (the "Company") informed the Argentine Securities Commission and the Buenos Aires Stock Exchange that, as disclosed on 13 August 2012, Chamber II of the National Court of Appeals on Federal Civil and Commercial Matters of the City of Buenos Aires (the "Court of Appeals") had ordered the joinder of the claims "Supercanal S.A. c/ Cablevisión S.A. y otros s/amparo" (File No. 39350/4) pending before Federal Court No. 2 of Mendoza (the "Mendoza Court") and "Ami Cable Holding LTD y otros s/apel resol Comisión Nac Defensa de la Competencia" (File No. 2054/10) pending before the Court of Appeals, both involving the Company's subsidiary Cablevisión S.A. ("Cablevisión").

Cablevisión was served notice of that decision on 14 August 2012 and proceeded, in turn, to notify the decision to the judge in charge of the Mendoza Court, Dr. Bento, and Chamber A of the Federal Court of Appeals of Mendoza. This created a jurisdictional conflict between the Court of Appeals and the Mendoza Court.

Pursuant to Section 24, subsection 7 of Decree/Law No. 1285/58, if a jurisdictional conflict arises between a judge of a given jurisdiction and a Federal Court of Appeals of a different jurisdiction, said conflict must be resolved by the Argentine Supreme Court. Therefore, the Argentine Supreme Court must resolve the conflict between Judge Bento and the Court of Appeals.

After having been served notice of the decision of the Court of Appeals of 13 August 2012 that ordered the joinder of the cases named above, on 17 August 2012, Judge Bento issued an order to notify Cablevisión of an extension of the scope of the injunction issued in re "Supercanal S.A. c/ Cablevisión S.A. y otros s/amparo". Under the extension of the scope, the judge ordered the removal of the Board of Directors of Cablevisión and its replacement with a court-appointed administrator whose role it was to fulfill court orders.

However, as a consequence of the terms of the Court of Appeals' decision ordering the joinder, the extension of the scope of the indenture is irregular and may not be deemed a valid notice, both because it should have been issued within the framework of the proceedings that were taking place in Buenos Aires in re "Supercanal c/ Cablevisión s/ exhorto", still pending, and also because the notice includes several irregularities that prevent it from being deemed as a valid act that produces any kind of legal effect.

Enquiries:

In Buenos Aires:

Alfredo Marín/Agustín Medina Manson

Grupo Clarín

Tel: +5411 4309 7215

Email: [email protected]

In London:

Alex Money/Helen Greenwood

Temple Bar Advisory

Tel: +44 20 7002 1080

Email: [email protected]

In New York:

Melanie Carpenter/Peter Majeski

I-advize Corporate Communications

Tel: +1 212 406 3692

Email: [email protected]