The Assembly of the Water Consortium of Lanzarote and the General Board of Inalsa have agreed this Thursday to take legal action against Pedro San Ginés and Ignacio Calatayud, whom they accuse of "looting public accounts", for the "irregular hiring of the lawyer and the undue collections of the same in the incidental procedures in which he represented, also irregularly, both entities”.
In a statement, they recall that “the investigation carried out by Inalsa over the last few months into the procedures in which San Ginés' lawyer-friend had appeared, following the lawsuit filed by Calatayud claiming payment from Inalsa of another 82,000 euros for contest fees and the surprising refusal of the latter to provide his own client with information on the bankruptcy incidents, has made it possible to know and prove a whole series of irregularities concealed by San Ginés”, which this Thursday have been brought to the attention of both bodies of the Consortium and Inalsa.
“With regard to the irregular hiring of the lawyer, the documentation obtained from the Court, in view of Calatayud's persistent refusal to hand it over, shows that San Ginés appointed Ignacio Calatayud as lawyer on at least nine occasions”, they point out. In addition, they stress that “the amount of the fees agreed for each of the first three appointments was much higher than the maximum limit that the law provides for this type of contract”, and recall that “the former president of the public water company accepted three budgets for 199,020 euros, 99,020 euros and 64,200 euros, when his powers allowed him to contract for a maximum of 18,000 euros”.
“In addition to scandalously exceeding the limits for which he was authorised, San Ginés proceeded with these contracts without formalising the corresponding contracting file, or justifying the choice of his lawyer friend (a novice in bankruptcy matters with no prior experience in the matter), merely accepting a budget theoretically sent by Calatayud, the conditions of which were transcribed in the document signed by San Ginés”, they explain.
"They caused serious damage to Inalsa"
In the case of the first contract, they detail that “it was signed for a total amount of 199,020 euros”, that is, “an amount practically equal to that which had been agreed with the law firm specialising in bankruptcy matters that was initially contracted for its experience in the matter”, but without discounting “the amount corresponding to the abundant work that the previous team had already carried out during the common phase of the bankruptcy procedure, allowing the ex-president's friend to collect it again in practice”.
The subsequent annulment of this first contract, which contemplated legal assistance to the entity in the entire bankruptcy procedure, and its replacement by two others, which covered only the common phase and the agreement phase, “caused serious damage to Inalsa, since not only were more beneficial conditions for the company renounced in favour of Calatayud, by excluding the bankruptcy incidents in the second contract, but also the cost of the agreement phase was increased by 50% in the third”, they point out from the company, which recalls that only “the sum of these irregular contracts has allowed Calatayud to collect the sum of 151,600 euros”.
Finally, with regard to irregular contracts, they point out that “investigations have revealed that Calatayud appeared on behalf of Inalsa in at least five bankruptcy incidents without any file for his appointment, so his contract could only be verbal and at the expense of San Ginés”. In one of these incidents, they detail that “a new appointment has been verified by San Ginés in favour of his friend Calatayud to also appear on behalf of the Insular Water Consortium, without any contracting file, or even a resolution agreeing to his appointment by the public entity, which was made through a new direct appointment by Pedro San Ginés”.
"Deliberate concealment strategy"
As far as the “undue collections” are concerned, they maintain that “the investigation has been able to prove, with the documents provided by the Court, that Calatayud received 642,000 euros, 80,250 euros and 26,750 euros for three bankruptcy incidents, which makes a total of 749,000 euros, whose collection at the expense of the opposing parties was concealed from Inalsa, these being amounts that have the legal consideration of credit in favour of the estate, so they would have served to pay part of the debt to the creditors”.
In addition, they recall that “the 749,000 euros unduly collected by Calatayud could amount to 831,609.95, should the claim made by the lawyer by means of a Sworn Statement of Accounts for a total of 82,609.95 euros prosper”.
In total, “including the collections from irregular contracts and the amount billed in the bankruptcy incidents, Calatayud would have collected a total of 983,209.95 euros from the bankruptcy procedure, compared to the 200,000 euros that were contemplated as the total price in the contract signed with the previous legal team, which included all the bankruptcy incidents”, they denounce.
In this way, they reiterate that “the agreements between San Ginés and Calatayud went to the extreme that the friend-lawyer of the former president of Inalsa charged twice as much as the bankruptcy administrators themselves, but for a notoriously inferior job since they intervened in more than 20 incidents and all phases of the bankruptcy, while Calatayud only intervened in 5 incidents and San Ginés hired him when the work of the common phase had already been largely carried out by the previous specialised team”.
After learning of these facts, which they describe as “extremely serious due to their consequences for the affected entities”, the Assembly of the Consortium and the General Board of Inalsa have adopted the agreement to exercise the legal actions that proceed, empowering the president of the Consortium and Inalsa to hire a lawyer and solicitor in order to exercise these actions.
The president of both public entities has positively valued “the investigation work carried out, as it has made it possible to know what happened throughout the bankruptcy procedure despite the deliberate concealment strategy hatched by San Ginés and Calatayud”, and has shown her “stupefaction and outrage after learning that while the public water company was gambling its future in harsh circumstances, there were those who took advantage of the situation for their personal benefit, indecently looting public accounts”.
