Ruiz Casado (Aifos's owner) will face again the justice due asset stripping

12.4.2014

Malaga's High Court have just order to reopen the criminal case against Ruiz Casado, as he moved 17 million euros from Aifos to Ziur before the Bankruptcy.

More info in http://www.ley57.com/pt4/es/categories/item/193-audiencia-provincial-reabre-el-caso-contra-dueño-de-aifos.html

Ruiz Casado is not the Aifos´s Administrator anymore.

March. 5th 2014 The Judge ordered to remove Ruiz Casado from his job in the Company. Now the Only administrators will be the ones designed by the Court. In the order the Judge also says that this is something that should be done years ago, as Ruiz Casado was involved in the Operación Malaya. Now The Court´s Administrators will decide if the company can get an agreement with the Creditor or they decide to go into liquidation.

AIFOS´s owners to be investigated

The Instruction Court of Málaga number 10 investigate the claim lodged by one Aifos’ creditor, who managed to gather enough supporting paper work to proof that the owners, Jesús Ruiz Casado and his wife, Teresa Maldonado Taillefer had carried out supposedly several transactions between 2008 and 2009 by which they ceded their properties, acquired shares from other companies and sold active to other companies, all of them under Aifos’ tutelage. In this way, according to the claim which SUR newspaper managed to see, Aifos would have been reducing its net’s worth intentionally, foreseeing its inevitable insolvency declaration. In fact, several claims of creditors were lodged demanding its insolvency proceedings to be approved, although it was the company itself which claimed the volunteer insolvency proceedings to be approved and which was given the go-ahead by the Mercantile Court number 1 in July 2009. The Court has already been informed about these facts, which are being investigated by criminal means, by means of a writ where the demanding party is asking the Judge in charge of the creditors meeting to “dismiss immediately” the proceedings administrators. According to the claim, one of Aifos's associates sold several properties to other company with no permission granted from the creditors meeting administrators , this associated company is not even listed in the Creditors list, although it seems that the Aifos administers it. In the petition for the dismissal of the creditors meeting administrators, the demanding creditor is also demanding that the Judge asks them to "reimburse the totality of the properties that were illegally transferred to the detriment of all of the other creditors". Amongst the facts in the claim lodged, six conveyances carried out by means of assignment in payment (dación en pago) are detailed along with sales of properties and shares, company shares acquisitions by means of unpaid promissory notes and lands released from their mortgages which in turn are levied upon some other lands owned by Aifos. All of them are well documented by means of Title Deeds with protocol number assigned by two Notary offices in the capital. For this reason, the demanding party asks for Jesús Ruiz Casado and his wife to be charged with a crime of fraudulent conveyance and other crime of fraudulent conveyance once the creditors meeting was approved, also with a crime of perfidious management. This newspaper has unsuccessfully sought to obtain Aifos’s version about the reported facts. The creditors meeting involving the development company affects more than six thousand of creditors, of which in the region of one thousand are property purchasers and hundreds of suppliers, to whom Aifos offered to pay only 45% of the debt owed to them, although payments will come into effect no sooner than a decade and at the rate of six yearly settlements. So far no agreement has been reached. Matters got worse since the development company asked the Judge, last month of April, to dismiss the three creditors meeting administrators whom were judicially appointed, arguing that these three administrators were being a “serious obstacle” for the normal unfolding of the proceedings. Aifos accused the administrators of being an “impediment” to reach an fair agreement for the creditors and which guarantees the feasibility of the company. Also, Jesús Ruiz Casado and several managers of the corporation are accussed in the so-called “Malaya case” for carrying out, allegedly, payments of nearly five millions of Euros to the former Urban development officer, Juan Antonio Roca, in exchange of urban favors. The sentence regarding this case will be issued in September.

Rough seas as to AIFOS creditor’s meeting. Administrators’ challenge.

Today, the challenge of the administrators of the Creditor’s meeting has been disclosed and it was firstly raised by one creditor and then AIFOS joined it by requesting the challenge of all of the administrators of the creditor’s meeting. Despite the Judge has initially rejected the latter, a hearing has been appointed where all of the creditors have been called. Regrettably, this hearing will not take place until next 2015! AIFOS’ grounding refers to a conflict of interests with the company declared in bankruptcy situation and the administrators of the creditor’s meeting. AIFOS states that the administrators of the creditor’s meeting only think of being paid their enormous fees, of which they have already been paid three quarters of the one million Euros each (and there are three of them). Thus, the outcome is likely to be Administrators of the Creditor’s meeting two and a half million Euros, creditors zero. Besides, there are no further news on the agreement that we discussed previously. We strongly advise the reading of SUR today’s article.

New proposal from AIFOS to the creditors. Can this be a Joke? Few months ago there was a proposal from this "company". Here comes a new one, even worse!! If you are a creditor maybe AIFOS has contact you with this offer: You forget about the 55% of the debt. Then they have from 10 to 15 years to refund the rest of the money yearly. Imagine you paid 40000 euros in 2002. Maybe the amount they ow you has been increased with interest and legal fees, and now they ow you 60000 euros. What they offer to the ordinary creditors will discount 55% of this amount, and the rest, 27000 euros, would be paid from 2022 in 5 yearly payments. (aprox 5500 euros a year). They will tell you there is no other option. If they go to liquidation maybe you will not recieve anything. Could be this true? Of course, they say, the owners of the compeny will not recieve interests from the company until everything is paid. They say nothing about salaries they can recive. Maybe they will tell you that the Banks were the "bad boys" who lead them to this situation. Maybe they will tell you that the bank are recieving Verdicts to consider them responables of the Bankrupcy. This is true, but... were they not in the obligation to build in time what they promised?? Send me your coments!!

Meeting with AIFOS

Last Friday January 20th. Ley 57 assisted to a meeting between AIFOS´s manager and lawyers.
In the meeting they presented a non formal proposal depending on the results of different cases they started against several banks.
They have got 3 different verdicts against 3 banks, where they were considered as "administrators in fact" so they lose all their privileges.
Now they want to get a reduction on the money they ow to the banks.
If they can get it, they propose to reduce 50% of all debts and 8 years to pay.
In the first three years, they would not pay anything.
Ley 57 refused that agreement, at least until recieve a formal proposition.

One year after!!!

AIFOS´s REPORT (general part for all the Ley 57´clients)


BEFORE BANKRUPTCY

From many years ago Ley 57´s Lawyers are fighting against AIFOS to recover buyer´s money.

Before July 23rd 2009, (date for bankrupcy declaration) we had different situations in our claims against AIFOS.

100% of our clients, in the last 8 years, got a verdict to obligate AIFOS to refund the money invested. Many of the clients got the money back (until end 2007). Many other cases started then, but the economical situation of the company was poor, and, today, several clients are pending to get their money back.
Aifos is currently in administration and faces some 900 legal claims for properties.

The owner Jesús Ruiz Casado and three directors also face charges in the Malaya corruption case.

Depending on each case, the way to proceed has been different, but, all cases had in common the fact that, if there not exists any Court resolution breaking the contract, the buyer is not a proper creditor.

If the contract was still running with AIFOS, the buyer was obligated to continue the payments, and, maybe, to take a mortgage over the original amount agreed with AIFOS or to wait and uncertain period to receive the apartment. Sometimes AIFOS tried to sign the deeds even without first occupation license. (In other cases they never started to build).

According to the Spanish Bankrupcy law, any credit pending to get a Verdict from any Court is considerated as “contingente”. This means the credit is being discussed.




BANKRUPCY DECLARATION. EFFECTS.

Today we have two Court for Company matters in all Málaga Province. Unfortunatly the second one was created after AIFOS Bankruptcy started, so, the Court (nr.1) was collapsed, and still is. This means any case in Court nr. 1 is going extremely slowly. (We cannot do anything regarding this matter). Today Court nr. 1 has two different Judges, but still going slowly.

Last year, (July 23rd) Commercial Court Nr. 1 declared AIFOS in Bankruptcy. This order had effect not only in the running contracts but also in the running Court claims.

Originally the Court condiser the Bankruptcy as “Voluntary”. This means AIFOS is still on bussines and they keep the same administration with some limits.

The Court named three administrators for supervising AIFOS´s Activity.

We (Ley 57) don´t agree with this decision but the law does not allow any appeal. We consider AIFOS cannot be managed by this way. We consider the Bankruptcy is “guilty” so we did an application to change AIFOS´s administration system. We try to take the current administrators away, so the Judge should name three other administrators on their places.

This aplication has not been answered yet.



ABOUT THE COURT ADMINISTRATION

Last year, 1 lawyer and one economist from Price Waterhous Coopers were named as Court Administration. This firma had previous economical relation with AIFOS and The law does not allow this.

Unfortunatly, the appeal against this decision was decided just a few months ago. The Judge recognized the mistake, but he considered to take them apart could have bad consecuences to the company as many time had passed and to name anothers administrations could delay the case much more.


Court adminisntrator´s fees were fixed in more than four million euros.

Even this fees could be agreed according to the law, we consider that amount as excessive. This matter is also pending to be decided in the corresponding apeal.

Court Administrators and AIFOS´s Administrator represents (together) the company.

The main obligation for the Court Administrator is to do a report with the general Aifos´s situation.







ABOUT THE COURT ADMINISTRATION´S REPORT (C.A.R)

C.A.R was done in Febrary 2nd 2010.

We consider this C.A.R. does not include the real AIFOS situation, as the report had several mistakes, and empty spaces, so we did a general complaint against the report on all our clients behalf, and also an individual complaint to move the individual credits to the best possible position in the creditor´s list (depending on each particular case).

In the general complaint we denounced to the AIFOS Court administration the 19 mill. Euros payment that AIFOS did to ZIUR just one year before the bankruptcy. Also we denounced the “empty spaces” in the report and the wrong information regarding AIFOS situation.

In the individual complaints we reported to the Court Administrators the real individual credit and the individual position in the creditor´s list.

No one of this complaints has been decided by the Judge, who have around 900 complaints pending to be solved.

We also requested from the Judge the declaration of this case as “guilty” in order to transfer the responsibilities to AIFOS´s owners. AIFOS´s owners have also the responsibility to refund your money

This is also still pending to be decided.




Apart from these complaints, Ley 57´s Lawyers took several iniciatives in order to protect all the creditor´s interest.

These Iniciatives are:

1) The Bankruptcy should be considered as “guilty”.
2) Return of the moneys paid to ZIUR from AIFOS.
3) Representation in ZIUR´s Bankruptcy.
4) Meetings with Court Administrator.
5) Trial against Mr. And Mss. Ruiz Casado.


1) The Bankruptcy should be considered as “guilty”.

When a Bankruptcy is considered “guity”, the company´s administration could be obligated to refund the money to the creditors.
We consider AIFOS case is one of the most evident cases to get this grade.
As we cannot do it alone, we asked to the Court Administrators to apply for this calification.

2) Return of the moneys paid to ZIUR.

During 2008 AIFOS paid to ZIUR 19 mill. Euros to cancel “debts”.
We consider this payment is a fraud, so we started a criminal case against Mr. ruiz Casado and wife.
Court nr. 3 in Fuengirola considered this was not a criminal matter, but we appealed this decision.




Nevertheless, we also started the civil way to get this money again into AIFOS´s patrimony.

3) Representation into ZIUR´s Bankruptcy case.

ZIUR (company of AIFOS´s group) has been recently declared also in Bankruptcy.
Ley 57´s Lawyers are now involved in that case, to defend ZIUR and AIFOS´s creditors.

4) Meeting with Court Administrators

We try to get first hands news regarding all the case, so we maintain flude relation with th Court administrations. We had several meetings with them .

Before end 2009, even before the Court Report, we went to see them. Then we discovered a lot of difficulties they had to do the report, due the non-cooperation from Aifos owners.

Also we met them in May in a conference they did together with Carlos Cómitre about Bankruptcies. We had the chance to speak about the case and to propose them some inciciatives, now pending to be decided by the Judge.

Last July we met them again to discuss individual cases. They are now studying the alternatives we proposed. We hope to maintain another meeting really soon to get an answer to our petitions.


5) Other criminal cases against AIFOS.

Also in July, there was a trial where Mr. Ruis Casado was involved. After 7 years from first denounce for swundeling.

Judge considered there was not a criminal case for this matter, as AIFOS demonstrated the intention to build all the apartments.

After this decision, we presented a new petition for “embargo” against the Ruiz Casado´s Assest, as a gatantee for Aifos´s creditors.

This petition is pending to be studied by the Judge.