The civil and commercial judge of the preventive bankruptcy of the agro-exporter Vicentin This Friday it rejected the approval of the agreement proposed by the company and opened the way for cramdown or rescue starting next Monday, judicial sources reported.
The provision is contemplated in the Bankruptcy and Contest Law to give continuity to a company from the presentation of offers from those interested in managing the company.
The same rule contemplates that the bankrupt itself, that is Vicentincan be presented in the cramdown period that will last until the end of September. This measure opens the door for the national State, through the creditor Banco Nación Argentina (BNA), to try again to take the reins of the company.
Vicentinthe main agro-exporting company with Argentine capital, went into default in December 2019 and the following March requested its preventive bankruptcy with credits verified for almost US$1.5 billion.
The civil and commercial judge of the second nomination of the Santa Fe city of Reconquista, Fabian Lorenzinisigned the resolution that rejects the approval of the agreement presented by Vicentin to exit the contest. The same resolution opens the bailout period and, at the same time, rejects the challenges to the proposal filed by the Banco de la Nación Argentina (BNA), the Federal Administration of Public Revenues (AFIP) and three other creditors.
The judge argued the rejection by pointing out in a 27-page resolution that “the impediment (to homologation) arises from the unequal distribution of effort between the creditors and the bankrupt company.”
The resolution “finds basis in the existence of a scheme that generates an excessive and unjustified transfer of bankruptcy liabilities on the backs of those creditors who do not receive 100% of their debts within the first 365 of the proposal”, the writing added.
For Lorenzini, the proposal presented by Vicentin, which covered 100% of the credits of 816 creditors with the payment of US$30,000, does not, however, contemplate the rest of the larger creditors on equal terms.
“There is an attempt to place business contingencies, even after the company’s bankruptcy, on the shoulders of creditors, thus contradicting the economic and social purpose of this type of crisis process,” the judge said.
Source: Ambito
