ESTAR (EST): Announcement - raport 79

Raport bieżący nr 79/2016

Podstawa Prawna:
ENEFI Energy Efficiency Plc. ("Company”) hereby informs its Honourable Investors that according to

the information from the Romanian operations, the second instance court decision (the lawsuit was

closed in favour of the Company at first instance) has been made in the lawsuit related to the

attachment exercised by the Romanian Financial Authority on the land of the Company in Zalău with

the following explanation:

The Court concluded in the explanation that the Financial Authority initiated collection legally on the

basis of only the amount of RON 265,977 from its total claim of RON 8,967,172. The Court concluded

about the other claims that the Financial Authority lost its right of collection (considering the failure

of registration in the previous bankruptcy proceedings of the Company). The Company also disputed

the claim of RON 265,977. The objection was rejected by the Court irrespectively of the fact that the

Court itself did not find the collection lawful apart from the interest.

The claim of RON 265,977 is the interest of the above RON 8,967,172 (RON 8,701,195 + RON 265,977

interest), which was established by the Financial Authority in spite of the fact that the Court had

declared earlier that it had lost its claim of RON 8,701,195. The Company challenged the decision

determining the interest which lawsuit was closed in favour of the Company at first instance;

however the Court approved the claim of the Financial Authority at second instance.

The Court based its decision on that decision in the present lawsuit.

The Company challenged the previous final in review proceedings because it is unintelligible for the

Company how interest can be determined for a capital claim which the Company is not obliged to

pay therefore it obviously cannot fall into delay. The request for review was rejected, which decision

is being appealed. The Company reminds stakeholders that the capital claims were not due to its

previous creditors regularly registered in the bankruptcy proceedings, since they waived those in the

settlement with the creditors.

The Company hereby highlights that the Financial Authority initiated collection for the total amount

of the claim being aware on the basis of the previous Court decision that it had lost its right to

enforce such collection. In addition to the above, the Authority did not pay the Company the amount

of VAT legally reclaimed by the Company because it was compensated its claim.

The Company will exercise revision against the present second instance decision.

Załączniki