The procedure initiated by lawyer Ignacio Calatayud to try to collect another 82,000 euros from Inalsa has brought to light a contract that the former president of the Cabildo and the Consortium, Pedro San Ginés, had kept "hidden" and that "benefited" this lawyer. This has been revealed by the public company, which claims that it became aware of this document after Calatayud himself submitted it to the Courts.
The new invoice that he now intends to collect corresponds to the processing of an incident within Inalsa's insolvency proceedings, for which the lawyer already charged 156,400 euros. For this reason, the company has rejected this new payment, stating that this budget accepted in its day by San Ginés "covered everything related to the insolvency proceedings". This is what Inalsa communicated to the Mercantile Court Number 1, before which Ignacio Calatayud filed a statement of accounts to demand payment of that invoice. However, in his response to Inalsa's statement of opposition, the lawyer has presented another different contract, "signed by Pedro San Ginés as CEO of Inalsa, in which only the common phase was contracted, excluding the rest of the phases and the insolvency incidents".
The first budget that included the entire contest was dated January 27, 2010 and the other was accepted on March 15 of that year. "Despite having been registered upon entry into Inalsa, the document did not reach the administration department", the company warns.
In fact, they explain that "the concealment of the document" caused all payments made to Calatayud related to the common phase of the contest to be made against the first contract of January 27, "as it was the only contract known to the administration services of the public company".
A second agreement that “nullifies” the previous one and “harms Inalsa”
“Beyond the concealment of the document, the most relevant aspect is the fact that the previous contract, which included the incidents in its amount, was annulled and replaced by another that expressly excluded them, an agreement that benefits Calatayud to the extent that it harms Inalsa”, questions the current management.
In addition, they add that although "the explanation given in its day by San Ginés is based on considering the contract of January 27 as a mere draft", the truth is that "Ignacio Calatayud himself sends Inalsa, dated March 2, 2010, the first invoice based on the contract to which he now intends to deny its validity".
“The contract of January 27 was not just a draft, it was such a real and effective contract that it allowed the payment of the first payment on March 2, 2010”, insist from Inalsa, who recalls that this budget amounted to almost 200,000 euros, and that “it came into existence at the moment in which the first payment was made”.
Thirteen days after that first payment, San Ginés accepted a new budget that, “in practice, implies the annulment of the previous contract, which was more beneficial for Inalsa, without any type of legal report that justifies this change of criteria, causing a loss to the public company to the same extent that it benefits its lawyer-friend”, they point out from the company, which recalls that the former president came to define Calatayud as a “sudden friend”.
Regarding the arguments of San Ginés, who “has always hidden behind the insolvency administration, deriving the hiring of Calatayud to it”, the company maintains that “despite his insistence on denying his participation, the version of who was president and CEO of Inalsa has been disauthorized by the administrators”.
In this regard, he emphasizes that in a report that the insolvency administrators sent to the Court on April 1, 2011, the judge was informed that Calatayud's fees as a lawyer for the Inalsa contest were agreed upon by “the legal representation of the bankrupt company and the lawyer”, that is, “Pedro San Ginés and his friend Ignacio Calatayud”, and that they, the insolvency administration, “limited themselves to supervising the agreed fees” in accordance with the Insolvency Law.
No designation for incidents is recorded
On the other hand, from Inalsa they add that “the strategy of annulling the first contract and signing another to allow Calatayud to collect the incidents does not automatically mean that the lawyer was responsible for appearing in the aforementioned incidents”, as ended up happening.
And it is that in that second contract that Calatayud has now provided, the only thing that is established is that “it does not include either the remaining phases or the possible incidents of the contest, but at no time is the award of the same to Calatayud himself agreed upon”.
However, from Inalsa they reveal that Calatayud appeared, at least, in five of the more than twenty incidents that were substantiated throughout the insolvency process, “without any designation or agreement by Inalsa being recorded, despite the fact that it was up to the public company to decide in which incidents its appearance was of interest”.
“This is an extremely serious circumstance since Calatayud has exercised the representation of the company without there being an express designation for it since, as has already been pointed out, the second contract expressly excluded the insolvency incidents”, they warn.
“Concealment of information”
Finally, they recall that both Inalsa and the Insular Water Consortium had to dismiss Ignacio Calatayud as the entity's lawyer in the creditors' meeting and its incidents because said lawyer “refused to provide the information that was repeatedly requested regarding the liquidation of credits in favor of Inalsa in said incidents, which was carried out by means of an agreement adopted on February 20, 2020”.
Since then, they explain that “the documentation related to those incidents that the lawyer hired by San Ginés has refused to provide has been requested from the Court”.
