It considers that the last expert report of the case does not allow to conclude that it was in crisis at the time of receiving the aid.
The Spanish Prosecutor’s Office has requested the file of the investigation into the rescue of 53 million euros (61.5 million dollars) granted to the airline Plus Ultra, as it considers that the latest expert report of the case does not allow to conclude that it was in crisis at the time of receiving the aid.
According to that document, to which he had access EFE, Plus Ultra would generally comply with “practically all the conditions established” by the Spanish State Industrial Participation Society (SEPI) to grant the loans.
On March 9, the Government authorized Plus Ultra to receive these resources from the SEPI Fund to Support the Solvency of Strategic Companies.
This matter is the subject of political controversy in Spain between the Executive, led by the socialist Pedro Sánchez, and the opposition of conservatives, the extreme right and liberals, who question the aid.
Its capital stock is mostly Spanish, although some of the shareholders are Venezuelans or have dual Spanish-Venezuelan nationality, according to the company itself, which at the time denied any connection “with Chavismo or other political regimes.”
The decision of the Public Ministry is produced as a result of the report “Plus Ultra Lineas Aereas SL”, by Martín Molina Abogados y Economistas. It was commissioned last June by the Madrid court, which is handling the case “in order to inform whether the company was complying with the applicable regulations at the time of the granting of the public subsidy.”
Until then, recalls the Prosecutor’s Office, the summary had two reports from independent experts who, based on the information provided by public records, endorsed the granting of the aid.
Now, this new expertise determines that “Plus Ultra would comply with practically all of the established conditions, despite the broad spectrum of some of them, except in relation to whether or not society was in a crisis situation. ‘as of December 31, 2019 “.
Regarding this point, the Prosecutor’s Office states that the expert’s doubts about the company’s equity situation at the end of said fiscal year “refer to the existence of a participating loan, not having recorded provisions, cancellation of the bondholders’ debt and possible insolvency situation “.
However, the analysis carried out by the expert considers four possible scenarios, “two of which do not allow us to infer that the company was in crisis” on that date. (I)
Paul is a talented author and journalist with a passion for entertainment and general news. He currently works as a writer at the 247 News Agency, where he has established herself as a respected voice in the industry.
