Franck assessed on Monday that the extraordinary administration of Agrokor ignores the decisions and rulings of the Commercial Court and the High Commercial Court (VTS), as well as the arguments of those who do not wish to operate under the dictate of a few creditors.
Franck’s statement reminds that the extraordinary administration of Agrokor published a statement on May 3, stating that “there are no arguments for Franck’s claims that an agreement due to the ruling of the High Commercial Court cannot be reached within the legally prescribed deadline.”
>>>The Constitutional Court will announce a decision on the constitutionality of lex Agrokor tomorrow
Franck warned last week that the creditors’ council will likely not be able to be formed by the deadline for reaching an agreement in Agrokor, i.e., by July 10, after the High Commercial Court accepted appeals from 10 domestic and foreign creditors and annulled the decision on the establishment of the creditors’ council of the group based on the classification of creditors into five groups.
The extraordinary administration of Agrokor, in a subsequent statement, announced that in the coming days it will again propose to the Commercial Court the number of members of the creditors’ council and the classification of creditors into groups, and will further clarify such a proposal.
It emphasized that the creditors’ council can be established as soon as the creditors in each of the groups elect their representatives and that there is no legally prescribed shortest deadline for this, assessing that the formation of a permanent council is in the interest of the creditors themselves and that it expects them to elect their representatives quickly.
>>>Agrokor: Belgian Ardo has not abandoned plans with Vinko
However, if that does not happen, they said in the extraordinary administration, there are still no obstacles to reaching an agreement because the Law on the Procedure of Extraordinary Administration states that the Temporary Creditors’ Council has the same powers, rights, and obligations as the permanent creditors’ council and performs the function of the permanent council until its formation.
Thus, any waiver of these rights to the Temporary Creditors’ Council has no legal basis, just as there are no arguments for Franck’s claims that an agreement due to the ruling of the High Commercial Court cannot be reached within the legally prescribed deadline, the extraordinary administration of Agrokor emphasized among other things.
Franck: The statement is an alibi for wrong decisions
The entire text of Agrokor’s statement is merely an unsuccessful attempt at public justification for all the wrong decisions and the lack of transparency in decision-making, both by the extraordinary administration and the temporary creditors’ council, which have resulted in recent decisions of the VTS and the Commercial Court in Zagreb, Franck points out.
>>> Lex Agrokor extended for another three months to finalize the agreement text
They also add that “instead of respecting the decisions and rulings of both courts, the extraordinary administration continues to operate as before and continues with the unacceptable practice of ignoring the arguments of all those who do not accept the dictate of a few creditors who have unlawfully taken the right to impose their partial interests as majority ones.”
Franck notes that by reviewing the file of the Commercial Court in Zagreb, it has been established that Agrolaguna d.d., one of the companies under extraordinary administration, has requested the Court to order the extraordinary commissioner to provide “an assessment of the value of the debtor and related and dependent companies.”
“We warn the entire public that the amounts of claims for voting have still not been determined or published, and that the extraordinary administration, in its notoriously biased and partial style, prejudges that this majority exists because it states that ‘the principal agreement of creditors reached on April 10 of this year has the support of the majority of creditors necessary to reach an agreement,'” Franck emphasizes.
>>>The extraordinary administration of Agrokor will again propose the number of members of the creditors’ council
They remind that the Commercial Court, in its Conclusion of April 26, called on the extraordinary commissioner to submit to the Court’s file within fifteen days a statement of how much of each creditor’s claim has been settled “since this affects the right to vote on the agreement.”
The extraordinary administration should have long ago and without the Court’s invitation published the table of claims for voting, but it has not done so because it would further delegitimize the current composition of the temporary creditors’ council, Franck points out.
They also add that this is the reason why the Commercial Court in Zagreb, with the same conclusion, called on the extraordinary commissioner to propose a new member of the temporary creditors’ council instead of the current representative of “small suppliers.”
>>>‘This is unacceptable’: Franck complains about the lack of transparency of the extraordinary administration of Agrokor
It is also evident from the very statement of the extraordinary administration that due to the short deadline, there is no real possibility for the formation of the creditors’ council as a legitimate and representative body of creditors and that there is an intention to unlawfully use the temporary creditors’ council to impose an agreement at the will of a few creditors, Franck states.
They emphasize that due to this, they were forced to request the Commercial Court to issue a temporary measure ordering the members of the temporary creditors’ council to refrain from giving consent to the final text of the agreement until the completion of the extraordinary administration procedure and the settlement of the company if the text of the agreement includes provisions on the disposal or transfer of the assets of the company Roto Dinamic d.o.o.
