The partners had a "real photo" of Fagor, according to its previous manager

The one that was last general director of Fagor Electrodomésticos

 Treviño has declared in the third session of the trial that is being held in the courts of Bergara (Guipúzcoa) for the class action brought by more than 900 former cooperative members of Fagor Electrodomésticos against the Mondragón Corporation.

The plaintiffs, grouped in the groups Eskuratu and Ordaindu, claim this group 47 million euros for the voluntary contributions and commercial loans deposited in the bankrupt company in 2014.

The appearance of Treviño has followed the path marked in the two previous days by the rest of the heads of Fagor Electrodomésticos and the Mondragón Corporation who insisted on the knowledge that the subscribers of the voluntary contributions had of the bad situation of the company and discarded indirectly the existence of a deception to keep their savings in it.

Treviño has reviewed the last months of the company, after a feasibility plan was approved in December 2012, with 70 million euros in support from the Mondragón Group, in two contributions of 35 million euros each. One, a strategy that only a few months later was overtaken by events and triggered a new restructuring project for which another 50 million euros were needed.

He has specified that this new demand for money from the Mondragón Group, which subsequently resulted in the entry into a bankruptcy proceeding, was due to a delay in a financial contribution expected by the Official Credit Institute (ICO).

 he stressed that throughout this process

 he stressed that throughout this process


the mechanisms of communication to the partners were “diverse and varied” and insisted that the existing “preoccupation” was “felt” in all the parties by the “treasury tensions” to which The company was subjected, which lived a “very complicated” reality at a time of crisis and in a market that was already “complicated” in and of itself.

He also stated that the way to give the information to the partners in the sessions was carried out with “an important pedagogical effort” and in a “didactic” way to convey “a very clear message” of the figures, so that later the decisions of each of them about the contributions were “yours”.

He has also insisted that the situation was explained “very realistically”, including the “difficulties” of the financing mechanisms and the “impact” that they were expected to have in the short term.

The chairman of the Fagor Electrodomésticos Governing Council in the same period, Xabier Bengoetxea, recalled how he participated in a meeting in which he informed the partners that the company could not pay interest on voluntary contributions for 2012 due to its “difficult “situation.

He assured that at that time they were informed that some plants were closed due to the lack of components and the workers in their homes because there was no money to pay the suppliers and the “little” that was obtained was dedicated to “maintain the activity” , despite which only two lawsuits were filed to demand the reimbursement of the voluntary contributions.

The insolvency administrator of Fagor Electrodomésticos, Ane Alkorta, has indicated that the decision to start the contest started from Fagor Electrodomésticos and Edesa, without appreciating any type of undue delay in their application.

Alkorta also recalled that both the Insolvency Administration and the Prosecutor’s Office did not conclude that information was hidden from any creditor.

Today’s session also featured an expert report from a consultancy whose representatives have indicated that the Mondragón Group did “a huge favor” to Fagor Electrodomésticos with the acquisition of the San Andrés and Garagartza plants in operation Ekimen Berri, which It caused a loss of twenty million euros in two years for the Corporation, which had purchased the plants for 55 million.

At the end of the day, the lawyer of the Mondragón Corporation, Arantxa Estefanía, has assured the journalists that, according to several dates that have been highlighted at this morning’s hearing, the claim of Ordaindu and Eskuratu “is prescribed” because the lawsuit was filed “more than a year later” of the established term. An idea in which he will go into more detail tomorrow, during the presentation of his conclusions before the judge.