The entrepreneur Miguel Pais do Amaral wants to move to court to require the new owner of TAP repairs for damage suffered from the fact that it has gone out of their consortium to buy the airline, eventually leading a rival consortium, the Atlantic Gateway .
The owner of Leya claims that the leader of Barraqueiro was “unfair” and broke the confidentiality agreement that prevented him from join a competitor in the race for TAP. Now threatens to resort to Portuguese and American justice, knew PUBLIC together next process source.
The warning was made by Miguel Pais do Amaral in a letter that according to the same source, was sent to Humberto Pedrosa on Thursday, the same day that this and his partner, David Neeleman, owner of Blue, signed the contract to purchase 61% of TAP in the Ministry of Finance in Lisbon. “By creating the Quifel Holdings [QH] the legitimate belief that integrate the consortium led by it and turn off on the final day, [Humberto Pedrosa] incurred clear pre-contractual liability,” reads the letter to the PUBLIC had access.
In it, the Quifel, personal holding Pais do Amaral, ensures Pedrosa “which will not fail to denounce and blame, privately and publicly, in the instances and forms as it deems appropriate.” Speaking to PUBLIC, Humberto Pedrosa said unaware of the existence of this document: “I know nothing, I have not received any letter and do not believe this can happen and [Miguel Pais do Amaral] may have such an attitude because what’s more we are friends personal “.
But Pais do Amaral warrant that you have capital Pedrosa of abuse and ensures that” in due time and proper place to QH will present its full accounting “of losses incurred with” competitive acts unfair “that charges the consortium former partner. This includes the fact that the shift barricade Humberto Pedrosa has allegedly prevented from moving forward with a proposal for binding by the airline having been the first to express interest in privatization.
To date, Miguel Amaral’s parents had remained discreet in relation to the break with the boss Barraqueiro, justifying the fact of not having delivered a proposal for binding by TAP with the need to assess the impact of ten-day pilots strike in May, on the eve the submission of tenders. However, the letter sent to Pedrosa is exhaustive:. The waiver of the consortium, “reported on binding proposal submission deadline, prevented the QH to seek an alternative to this absence”
The owner of the group Leya goes further and says that it was the alliance with Pedrosa that secured Neeleman “admissibility conditions [in the privatization process], which otherwise could not meet.” This is because EU rules prevent non-European investors to control airlines within the EU. The proposal of the Atlantic Gateway (where both partners were advised by company lawyers Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira) guarantees the state a fitting ten million euros and TAP an injection of at least 354 million.
The proposal led by Miguel Pais do Amaral that was delivered to Parpública May “would not be the same” if it had counted “with the participation of Humberto Pedrosa,” said the PUBLIC source close to the process. It is recalled that Pais do Amaral (which initially appeared associated with the former shareholder and president of Continental Airlines, Frank Lorenzo) gave only a non-binding proposal, with the support of three international funds whose names were not disclosed, in calling for four to six weeks to submit a final offer, which led the government to remove him from the process. The proposal assumed EUR 325 million to capitalize the TAP, but included no money for the company’s actions.
Now, the investor comes Pedrosa accused of having forced to stand in the way, but you have copied to Atlantic Gateway “various financial and operational solutions” that Quifel had considered present. The investor accuses still Pedrosa had broken “the principle of equality of parties” when approaching Neeleman with detailed information supply Quifel allowing put the Atlantic Gateway “in a privileged position compared to other competitors” and says the entrepreneur “acted maliciously”.
No comments:
Post a Comment