A number of violations prove that the search for and selection of an investor for A-TEC was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. Penta thus expects a verdict which will result in refraining A-TEC from breaching the binding rules and procedures of the restructuring plan.
Penta would like to emphasize the following facts:
- Contor Industries was only entered into the companies' registry on 25 June 2011. Thus, Contor could not have provided an offer by 15 June 2011 as expressly requested by A-TEC.
- Contor is a company established by a former employee and advisor to A-Tec, Mr. Thomas Schätti, who was a point of contact at A-Tec for all investors including Penta. He thus received confidential information on other bids, which cannot be in line with the rules of fair competition.
- Contor did not provide a binding offer 'for A-TEC' as requested by the restructuring plan on 30 June 2011, but only served to aggregate the offers of other companies without being a party to the sale and purchase agreement itself.
- Contor did not prove adequate financing and sufficient funds in its offer on 30 June 2011 as requested by A-TEC and the trustee.
"The selection of Contor as an investor is ignoring and avoiding the rules set out in the restructuring plan and other related regulations. The court-approved restructuring plan demanded that A-TEC search for an investor 'for A-TEC'. The Restructuring Plan did not allow for an intermediary that does not want to be an investor itself and is not a party to any sale and purchase agreement at all to act on behalf of other companies," said Martin Kúšik, partner of Penta Investments.
Contrary to that, Penta had met all of the requirements set out for an investor for A-Tec. Penta provided an initial offer in time followed by a binding offer on June 30th. The offer included the proof of financing and its acceptance would allow bondholders to be paid the full 47 percent quota. Penta has publically declared several times its strong commitment to solve A-TEC´s financial difficulties, which we proved by extending the validity of our offer three times already.