Australis files $475m lawsuit against Isidoro Quiroga and related parties.
Chilean salmon farmer Australis Seafoods has filed a civil lawsuit seeking damages of more than $475 million, against companies linked to businessman Isidoro Quiroga, as well as members of his family and former executives of the company.
The claim has been lodged with the 15th Civil Court of Santiago and alleges that the former controlling shareholder group designed and operated an unlawful system of systematic overproduction between 2019 and 2022. According to the filing, the practices caused severe and lasting damage to Australis’ assets and exposed the company to significant regulatory and financial risks.
Australis claims that the alleged misconduct only came to light after a new controlling group appointed a new chief executive in mid-2022. Among the evidence cited is a so-called “gentlemen’s agreement”, described as a secret contract between former chief executive Ricardo Misraji and Quiroga, under which Misraji was allegedly promised payments of up to $2.5 million in exchange for remaining silent and cooperating in concealing overproduction.
Quiroga was previously ordered in August 2025 by an arbitral tribunal to repay more than $300 million to Joyvio, which acquired Australis, relating to the purchase price paid in the transaction. That arbitration focused on damages suffered by Joyvio as buyer, while the current lawsuit seeks compensation for losses allegedly suffered directly by Australis, which was not a party to the arbitration.
The lawsuit names several former Australis executives alongside Quiroga, including Ricardo Misraji, Santiago Garretón, Rubén Henríquez and Adriano Cabrini. It alleges that at the time of sale the company was presented as compliant with environmental regulations, while in reality operating in breach of its environmental permits.
Responding to the filing, Quiroga’s investment company Asesorías e Inversiones Benjamín said the claims repeat allegations that have already been rejected by courts in Chile and in jurisdictions including England, Florida and Delaware. The group said the arbitral tribunal found unanimously that there was no concealment of information or intentional misconduct, and argued that the lawsuit represents a communications strategy rather than a substantive legal case.
