OREANDA-NEWS. May 15, 2012. Chief lawyer of the joint-stock company Vinuri Ialoveni (wine producer), Corneliu Gandrabur, has disproved accusations of its creditors – FinComBank, companies Trade, Drob-Gher – that said that enterprise’s insolvency is profitable for its borrowers and founders.

According to the lawyer, when the Communist party was in power, the Vinuri Ialoveni enterprise with public capital was included in a list of state enterprises that had to use the services of FinComBank.

“Thus, the enterprise was obliged to go over from the services of Moldova Agroindbank (whose stockholder it is) to FinComBank in 2002. Since then, a ‘fruitful’ work with the bank began. In 2004-2005, FinComBank provided loans at high interest rates that later on turned into an overwhelming burden, i.e. 23% [interest] plus ? penalties plus 0.15% fines for every day of delay”, Gandrabur said.

According to the specialist, almost all enterprise assets were mortgaged for loans at very low prices, including an adjoining land plot of 5.54 hectares, as well as significant amount of wines.

“Only a damage caused by wines transfer to mortgaging is assessed at 11 million lei”, he said.

The enterprise representative said the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry applied to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) with a request to check the legality of such loans and cancel shackling agreements. In February 2012, the PGO began a criminal investigation.

“Besides, the company Vinex Victoria – as a stockholder and founder of Vinuri Ialoveni – filed a suit to cancel agreements on mortgage and pledge. In the beginning of 2009, FinComBank began putting pressure on the company to pay off loans ahead of schedule”, the lawyer said.

Gandrabur said via court the bank undertook several attempts to seize the enterprise.

“The interest in Vinuri Ialoveni assets is group and mercenary, and the bank together with a group of creditors tries to sell the company by piecemeal by division of the pledge. Within accumulation of assets at very low prices, its stocks will drop in price, and the court will make a decision on enterprise liquidation because of insolvency at the same time”, the specialist said, adding the company leadership and staff want to restore activities of Vinuri Ialoveni.

In conformity with a press release of Vinuri Ialoveni creditors the Infotag news agency published in its website on March 21, 2010, the enterprise increases its arrears to the founder enterprise Vinex Victoria in a strange way, signing agreements of money transfers between the firms, indicating a 19-million-lei debt.

According to the statement, since October 1, 2010, the enterprise is in insolvency process and continues operating with a debt of 2.7 million lei, reducing price of stocks at the stock exchange.
Since October 1, 2010, the enterprise is in insolvency process and continues operating with a debt of 2.7 million lei, reducing price of stocks at the stock exchange.

The same day, Infotag issued short information about a conflict of interests between company creditors and owners, indicating a press release of a group of creditors as a source of information.

On April 26, the Vinuri Ialoveni lawyer said he is dissatisfied with the fact that the news agency published the press release of creditors at own website, as well as told about the conflict of interests between enterprise stockholders and creditors. Namely, Gandrabur accused Infotag of inobservance of the Code of journalists by the spread of unchecked, slanderous and unmasking information about the enterprise.

Owing to it, Infotag reminds that in conformity with the law, it ensures the right to expression, which also occurred on March 21, 2012, when the press release of creditors was published. At the same time, the agency allows other parties to express different opinions about a conflict between sides involved.

The Infotag agency adduces an excuse to Vinuri Ialoveni stockholders if the placement of the creditors’ statement created inconvenience to the enterprise. The Agency does not support any of involved parts, believing that only the court can decided who is right and who is wrong.