The Board of Directors of Inalsa and the Island Water Consortium approved last Friday that the public company adhere voluntarily to the Bankruptcy Law, but its main creditor got ahead of it. After holding a meeting with the CEO of Inalsa, in which Dimas Martín also participated, and especially after listening to the subsequent press conference of the PIL last Thursday, Unelco decided to go to court to request the forced judicial intervention of the company.
"In the meeting they requested that we not present the bankruptcy, saying that they were going to negotiate the debt with us. The conversations were open to continue negotiating but immediately afterwards, we learned that they had given a press conference to announce that they were going to request the application of the Bankruptcy Law", say sources from Unelco, who do not hide their discomfort at what happened.
In essence, the difference between voluntarily adhering to the creditors' meeting or being imposed forcibly at the request of a third party lies in the capacity for political maneuvering that the Inalsa officials will have left. And it is that while one option only implies that three administrators are incorporated into the Board of Directors, to supervise the making of agreements and reach a viability plan within a year, the forced intervention implies the disappearance of this body, leaving the reins of the company completely in the hands of Justice.
Uncertain panorama
Despite Unelco's request before the Commercial Court, from Inalsa they consider that their voluntary request will prevail. And it is that although until this Wednesday they had not yet addressed the Courts, they point out that the fact that the decision is adopted in the administrative bodies of Inalsa, which was convened previously and with that point on the agenda, prevails over the presentation of Unelco.
In addition, they assure that the jurisprudence indicates that when there is a voluntary request and a forced request from the creditors, what is attended to is the voluntary request. Regarding who presented it first, they point out that it is not decisive, because a creditor could always get ahead, as the calls for the decision-making bodies of a public company are public, where an agreement of this magnitude passes.
In this regard, from Unelco they are clear. "The issue is in the hands of Justice, and the judge will decide." In any case, they emphasize that they already have a previous judicial order in which Inalsa is obliged to pay them 6.5 million euros, although this payment has not been made either.
"Not a euro in a year"
"We want it to be clear to the clients we have in Lanzarote that this company has had the will to negotiate all the time and the greatest willingness to reach agreements. Contrary to what is read out there, this company has not tried to suffocate anyone. And if not, we refer to the evidence", say sources from Unelco.
Thus, they assure that Inalsa "has not paid a penny" in the last year. "There has not been at any time a gesture to pay something during an entire year, and the problem is not only that the debt is already 14 million euros, but that every month one million more is added. We understand that our administrators also demand that we act in defense of the company".
RELATED NEWS
[Espino considers "of vital importance" that the judicial intervention of Inalsa be voluntary->27150]
