The Plaintiffs’ Lawyer’s Conclusions

The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Raúl Tenés, spoke at the beginning of the session. Without interrupting Tenes, Fagor Appliances has tried to emphasize the link between the plant and Mondragon and the intervention of the latter in the decisions of the former. According to the lawyer, a detailed follow-up was carried out by Mondragon and all the decisions that Mondragon made between 2011 and 2013 were aware of the situation.

In this way, he emphasizes that a “story” was transmitted. Tenes, Javier Retegi has used this term used in an assembly when he has repeatedly referred to “the message that Mondragon sent to its partners”. He mentions that Retegi said in the assembly that in order to carry out “this plan” it would be essential to generate trust in partners and exteriors. “This story has had a script,” insists Sunion, an attorney with the firm. “From the end of 2011, the directors of Mondragón completed a story to postpone the competition of Fagor Appliances. Knowing that he was creating a false expectation for the purpose of creating pain.”

The Magic Recipe of Solidarity

The lawyer says that the message sent to the members by the directors of Fagor Appliances was a “magic recipe of solidarity”. Only in this way, according to Tenes, 20% of the members asked for the return of the money. Only two of them did.

the suit, and these two were not members of the Get and Pay associations. “Of course, they were betting on the plan to keep the partners and the contributions in the cooperative, because it was said that if not, they would be in the contest the next day.”

Raul Tenes emphasizes that through the testimonies it has become clear that the planning was a disaster for any director of Fagor Appliances. They had a great lack of foresight, according to him, and their decisions were the cause of the losses.

The ones they had.

Lack of prudence

Mondragon had to be more cautious, according to the plaintiffs’ lawyer. “Play with more precision.” Instead, they “decided to say that it was in the interest of the corporation that Fagor had a secure future.” For Raúl Tenes, the partners were not prepared due to their limited knowledge of contribution and financial matters.

"Mondragón says that the deadline starts with the liquidation and we say that it was not until February 2015 that the partners were informed that they have lost everything. In other words, they were discharged from the cooperative by letter in February, as confirmed by Bengoetxea, so that the lawsuit was made within one year."

The conclusions of Mondragon’s lawyer

Mondragon’s lawyer, Arantza Estefania, spoke after Tenes. Estefania stresses that the legal basis for a claim is necessary and that the facts must be proved. He underlines that, according to the lawsuit, Mondragon acted in his best interests and that this has been completely cancelled in four days’ notice. "It is of vital importance," he says, that during these days, "several issues that have been discussed have already been resolved in the contest of creditors." For example, the contest was unexpected and it was decided that no information was withheld from creditors, including Pago and Acquired.

In addition, Arantza Estefanía points out that Mondragon is not a vertical group or a holding company, which was demonstrated in the creditors’ competition because the cooperatives were considered independent. "After years of analysis of the documentation, it is clear that only the cooperative Fagor Household made the decision to go to the competition without the intervention of Mondragón."

A different direction

Attorney Arantza Estefania explains that the plaintiffs appear to have "stopped believing in their arguments" during the trial. This is based on the fact that many of the issues on which the procedure has been based have not even been mentioned by the applicants at the oral hearing. "About the articles of the magazine Tu Lagune and the speech of Txema Gisasola at the European Forum".

In addition, Raúl Tenes has focused his sessions and conclusions on the minutes of the assemblies, and "of all those that have been used, only two belong to the organs of Mondragón". "There are no signs of deception, only the concern of the Corporation is expressed in it," said Arantza Estefania.

The Prescription Lawsuit

According to Mondragon’s lawyer, the deadline for filing the lawsuit began on July 29, 2014, and they had a period of one year to do so. In fact, for Estefania, "the deadline for receiving financial contributions expired on that day". The lawsuit was filed by the associations in November 2015. So, according to the lawyer, it would be prescribed.

Corroborated by witnesses

According to the lawyer, the witnesses who have passed through the court have clearly confirmed several important points. Among other things, "it has been attempted to transfer responsibility for contributions to Mondragon, but Arantxa Laskurain made it clear that the Corporation does not use these figures, special contributions and commercial loans, and mentioned that they belong to Fagor". In addition, for Estefania, all witnesses have said that "strategic decisions were made independently by each cooperative."

This news has been published by Goiena and we have brought it to LUZ thanks to the CC-by-sa license.