captain sparrow
Forumer storico
ricevuta da avvocato e tradotta in inglese da tedesco (in italiano è peggio)
Dear Sir or Madam,
In the above-mentioned matter, I may report to you as a joint representative of the 2011/2016 bond below the date of the creditor's meeting of 5 October 2016.
I am allowed to announce that I have been informed by various investors that I did not receive my last circular of 23 September 2016. I am assuming that this was technically caused and my last e-mail, especially from spam filters o.a. Was blocked. I therefore allow myself to attach my last e-mail in the appendix again.
Report of the insolvency attorney attorney Schmudde
The creditor's meeting was initially marked by the very sobering report of the insolvency administrator on the current state of the proceedings. This report was submitted by the insolvency administrator verbally on the basis of her report against the insolvency court of 26 September 2016. In the next few days, in cooperation with the insolvency administrator, I will make this report available on the Internet presence of my firm (www.muellerseidelvos.de) To allow interested investors access to this comprehensive documentation of the current procedure. Key aspects of the report were as follows:
Insolvency causes
First, the insolvency administrator reported on the causes of the insolvency. In doing so, it initially made the point that the business figures submitted by the company in the past are subject to considerable doubts. In particular, there are grounds for believing that the reported sales figures are excessive. In this regard, the competent public prosecutor had already initiated investigations (see also below).
As one of the main causes of the company's deficit, the insolvency administrator stated that German Pellets GmbH apparently had no robust controlling. A company management and development oriented to the actual business development was therefore not possible. In addition, German Pellets GmbH, as the parent company of the company group, bore all the costs of the entire group of companies. The services invoiced to the respective subsidiaries were not paid by them. In the same way, the borrowing capital was passed on to other foreign group companies and is therefore no longer available in Germany.
Given these substantial cash outflows, the insolvency administrator assumes, according to current estimates, that the insolvency tariff in the form of insolvency had already entered the middle of 2015.
Insolvency administration activities
Schmudde, an insolvency attorney, reported that at the beginning of the insolvency proceedings, all data had been completely secured by a comprehensive server mirroring. This ensures that data from the company has not been able to be manipulated since this date, but on this basis a comprehensive review of the insolvency is possible.
At the start of the business, the business had already been de facto stopped. In particular, no pellet production has taken place since 15 December 2015. Konto assets in the amount of approximately € 2 million were already pledged, so that the insolvency administrator found only a free stock of approx. € 5,000.00 when taking over the mandate. In order to be able to act at all, a credit of more than € 1.4 million was therefore taken up by Commerzbank. This credit was secured by third party claims arising since then. Other assets were no longer available for hedging purposes. In particular, the entire assets of the company were burdened at least once, sometimes even several times by third-party creditors.
In addition to the bulk loan, a pre-financing of the insolvency allowance took place with the approval of the employment agency.
After this inventory, it became clear that the business was not able to maintain itself under a full cost load bracket (ie without the subsidy through the insolvency payment). The insolvency administrator therefore already initiated a so-called M & A process in the provisional insolvency proceedings, ie the sale of the company. To this end, a total of 130 interested parties were contacted worldwide, seven of which were available at the start of the process. On this basis, the plant in Wismar and the factories in Baden-Württemberg were sold and duly executed in these sale agreements. The partial payments of € 1.9 million (Wismar) and € 2.4 million (Baden-Württemberg), which were held by the insolvency estate and not by the creditors secured with this, have already been received by the insolvency administrator.
· In addition, German Pellets GmbH had participations in a total of 23 companies, which in turn are themselves in insolvency proceedings and in this respect almost invariably worthless.
· There was little physical capacity. The insolvency administrator assumes that by merely an assumed trade of inventories between the individual group companies, only book positions were set up, which actually did not meet any economic values. If existing inventories were still existing, these were also sold in the meantime.
· Receivables from delivery and services were valued at € 45 million at German Pellets GmbH. However, receiv- ables of € 36 million against group-affiliated companies, which are unlikely to be collectible for reasons set out, are aimed at this. The claims were, however, filed in the insolvency proceedings in the Insolvency Table. Regarding the remaining € 9 million against third-party believers, unfortunately, it is also likely that these are probably not worthwhile. The claim has already been initiated. However, it is shown that such claims are subject to considerable and, to that extent, also comprehensible objections by the respective debtor and have been accounted for excessively.
· In addition, there are loan claims of approximately € 203 million, mainly directed against Austrian companies. These loan claims are unsecured with a maturity date in 2038. The repayment of this loan amount is therefore most likely futile.
· In addition, the insolvency administrator contributed to the so-called special assets, ie, those claims that could be specific due to the insolvency situation. In this case, a possible liability claim had to be named against auditors. However, the relevant legal review still lasts.
· The Insolvency Administrator clearly recognizes claims against Mr Leipold from the so-called liability for insolvency since even after the insolvency occurred, payments from the company's assets were likely to continue after the year 2015. These amount in millions. However, the creditworthiness of Mr. Leipold is currently not foreseeable, so that the value of these claims can not currently be assessed with certainty.
· In addition, the insolvency administrator is currently working to challenge claims with a value of around € 4 million.
As a result, the insolvency administrator estimates the insolvency mass, ie the value of the found assets, cautiously with € 12 million. However, due to this very cautious estimate there is still considerable potential to increase.
outlook
The utilization of the existing assets has largely been concluded to this extent. The focus of the insolvency administrator is now directed towards the collection of the receivables positions mentioned above.
On request from the ranks of the creditors present, the insolvency administrator reported that claims against Mr Leipold had already been made out of court. Mr Leipold has so far signaled a willingness to make comparisons with a view to his restricted financial possibilities. In addition, the insolvency administrator reported that the prosecutor's office was already active in the matter. There would be an intensive exchange between their office and the public prosecutor's office, which also included, in particular, the secured data. According to the insolvency administrator, a timely and short-term action of the prosecutor's office is foreseeable.
resolutions
The necessary resolutions took considerable space. The underlying reason was that bondholders with very significant demands had expressed the desire to participate in the work of the Creditors' Committee. This concern that I had supported on the basis of my knowledge, on the one hand, of the professional quality of the candidates, and on the other hand, of the economic interest of the bond creditors in question, was necessarily connected with the termination of the activities of other members of the provisional creditor committee. In order to ward off this proposal, two (provisional) creditors' committee members, who, in my opinion, should at least represent the interests of the bond creditors, requested me to reduce my voting rights to € 0.00 due to my position as joint representative of your investment And to exclude us from this decision. On the other hand, I have already turned to the meeting and has been confirmed not only by the mayor of the meeting, but also by the competent judge. However, the legal clarification required a considerable amount of time.
After this considerable delay of several hours, the creditor's meeting decided to end the self-administration and to confirm the insolvency administrator's office. Subsequently, a seven-member creditor committee was elected, which now also includes an institutional bond investor for the purpose of emphatically representing the interest of bond creditors. After further formal resolutions, the faithful's gathering was closed at about 18:30.
I will then again inform about the further development, and in particular of the results of the debt audit, which will be forthcoming in the next few weeks. If there are more detailed questions, I would be pleased to receive your return by e-mail. I would then decide whether I would answer this e-mail individually or the questions raised in the next newsletter to the knowledge of all registered bond creditors.
Best regards
DANIEL VOS
Lawyer
Specialist in banking and capital market law
As joint representative of bond WKN A1H3J6
Dear Sir or Madam,
In the above-mentioned matter, I may report to you as a joint representative of the 2011/2016 bond below the date of the creditor's meeting of 5 October 2016.
I am allowed to announce that I have been informed by various investors that I did not receive my last circular of 23 September 2016. I am assuming that this was technically caused and my last e-mail, especially from spam filters o.a. Was blocked. I therefore allow myself to attach my last e-mail in the appendix again.
Report of the insolvency attorney attorney Schmudde
The creditor's meeting was initially marked by the very sobering report of the insolvency administrator on the current state of the proceedings. This report was submitted by the insolvency administrator verbally on the basis of her report against the insolvency court of 26 September 2016. In the next few days, in cooperation with the insolvency administrator, I will make this report available on the Internet presence of my firm (www.muellerseidelvos.de) To allow interested investors access to this comprehensive documentation of the current procedure. Key aspects of the report were as follows:
Insolvency causes
First, the insolvency administrator reported on the causes of the insolvency. In doing so, it initially made the point that the business figures submitted by the company in the past are subject to considerable doubts. In particular, there are grounds for believing that the reported sales figures are excessive. In this regard, the competent public prosecutor had already initiated investigations (see also below).
As one of the main causes of the company's deficit, the insolvency administrator stated that German Pellets GmbH apparently had no robust controlling. A company management and development oriented to the actual business development was therefore not possible. In addition, German Pellets GmbH, as the parent company of the company group, bore all the costs of the entire group of companies. The services invoiced to the respective subsidiaries were not paid by them. In the same way, the borrowing capital was passed on to other foreign group companies and is therefore no longer available in Germany.
Given these substantial cash outflows, the insolvency administrator assumes, according to current estimates, that the insolvency tariff in the form of insolvency had already entered the middle of 2015.
Insolvency administration activities
Schmudde, an insolvency attorney, reported that at the beginning of the insolvency proceedings, all data had been completely secured by a comprehensive server mirroring. This ensures that data from the company has not been able to be manipulated since this date, but on this basis a comprehensive review of the insolvency is possible.
At the start of the business, the business had already been de facto stopped. In particular, no pellet production has taken place since 15 December 2015. Konto assets in the amount of approximately € 2 million were already pledged, so that the insolvency administrator found only a free stock of approx. € 5,000.00 when taking over the mandate. In order to be able to act at all, a credit of more than € 1.4 million was therefore taken up by Commerzbank. This credit was secured by third party claims arising since then. Other assets were no longer available for hedging purposes. In particular, the entire assets of the company were burdened at least once, sometimes even several times by third-party creditors.
In addition to the bulk loan, a pre-financing of the insolvency allowance took place with the approval of the employment agency.
After this inventory, it became clear that the business was not able to maintain itself under a full cost load bracket (ie without the subsidy through the insolvency payment). The insolvency administrator therefore already initiated a so-called M & A process in the provisional insolvency proceedings, ie the sale of the company. To this end, a total of 130 interested parties were contacted worldwide, seven of which were available at the start of the process. On this basis, the plant in Wismar and the factories in Baden-Württemberg were sold and duly executed in these sale agreements. The partial payments of € 1.9 million (Wismar) and € 2.4 million (Baden-Württemberg), which were held by the insolvency estate and not by the creditors secured with this, have already been received by the insolvency administrator.
· In addition, German Pellets GmbH had participations in a total of 23 companies, which in turn are themselves in insolvency proceedings and in this respect almost invariably worthless.
· There was little physical capacity. The insolvency administrator assumes that by merely an assumed trade of inventories between the individual group companies, only book positions were set up, which actually did not meet any economic values. If existing inventories were still existing, these were also sold in the meantime.
· Receivables from delivery and services were valued at € 45 million at German Pellets GmbH. However, receiv- ables of € 36 million against group-affiliated companies, which are unlikely to be collectible for reasons set out, are aimed at this. The claims were, however, filed in the insolvency proceedings in the Insolvency Table. Regarding the remaining € 9 million against third-party believers, unfortunately, it is also likely that these are probably not worthwhile. The claim has already been initiated. However, it is shown that such claims are subject to considerable and, to that extent, also comprehensible objections by the respective debtor and have been accounted for excessively.
· In addition, there are loan claims of approximately € 203 million, mainly directed against Austrian companies. These loan claims are unsecured with a maturity date in 2038. The repayment of this loan amount is therefore most likely futile.
· In addition, the insolvency administrator contributed to the so-called special assets, ie, those claims that could be specific due to the insolvency situation. In this case, a possible liability claim had to be named against auditors. However, the relevant legal review still lasts.
· The Insolvency Administrator clearly recognizes claims against Mr Leipold from the so-called liability for insolvency since even after the insolvency occurred, payments from the company's assets were likely to continue after the year 2015. These amount in millions. However, the creditworthiness of Mr. Leipold is currently not foreseeable, so that the value of these claims can not currently be assessed with certainty.
· In addition, the insolvency administrator is currently working to challenge claims with a value of around € 4 million.
As a result, the insolvency administrator estimates the insolvency mass, ie the value of the found assets, cautiously with € 12 million. However, due to this very cautious estimate there is still considerable potential to increase.
outlook
The utilization of the existing assets has largely been concluded to this extent. The focus of the insolvency administrator is now directed towards the collection of the receivables positions mentioned above.
On request from the ranks of the creditors present, the insolvency administrator reported that claims against Mr Leipold had already been made out of court. Mr Leipold has so far signaled a willingness to make comparisons with a view to his restricted financial possibilities. In addition, the insolvency administrator reported that the prosecutor's office was already active in the matter. There would be an intensive exchange between their office and the public prosecutor's office, which also included, in particular, the secured data. According to the insolvency administrator, a timely and short-term action of the prosecutor's office is foreseeable.
resolutions
The necessary resolutions took considerable space. The underlying reason was that bondholders with very significant demands had expressed the desire to participate in the work of the Creditors' Committee. This concern that I had supported on the basis of my knowledge, on the one hand, of the professional quality of the candidates, and on the other hand, of the economic interest of the bond creditors in question, was necessarily connected with the termination of the activities of other members of the provisional creditor committee. In order to ward off this proposal, two (provisional) creditors' committee members, who, in my opinion, should at least represent the interests of the bond creditors, requested me to reduce my voting rights to € 0.00 due to my position as joint representative of your investment And to exclude us from this decision. On the other hand, I have already turned to the meeting and has been confirmed not only by the mayor of the meeting, but also by the competent judge. However, the legal clarification required a considerable amount of time.
After this considerable delay of several hours, the creditor's meeting decided to end the self-administration and to confirm the insolvency administrator's office. Subsequently, a seven-member creditor committee was elected, which now also includes an institutional bond investor for the purpose of emphatically representing the interest of bond creditors. After further formal resolutions, the faithful's gathering was closed at about 18:30.
I will then again inform about the further development, and in particular of the results of the debt audit, which will be forthcoming in the next few weeks. If there are more detailed questions, I would be pleased to receive your return by e-mail. I would then decide whether I would answer this e-mail individually or the questions raised in the next newsletter to the knowledge of all registered bond creditors.
Best regards
DANIEL VOS
Lawyer
Specialist in banking and capital market law
As joint representative of bond WKN A1H3J6
