Monitor analysis: The end of Russian “” at Vlora Airport

The Monitor rebuilds the history of the conflict, recounting the clash in courts and the effect that security measures have had on the decision-making and performance of strategic investment.

At the same time, reporting also brings a new detail of value to tourists and agencies that have already linked contracts to the airport. “

This detail, as a significant part of the Monitor analysis, shows the gap between public promise and administrative reality of the project.

Mabco's version, the 9.8% shareholder talking about a “obsolutely invalid” contract

In its version of history, Mabco, which owns 98% of airport shares, presents conflict as an attempt to remove majority shareholder control through a contract that, according to her, “has no legal power” And is Invalid “ The point of the argument relates to the fact that the deal for 47% of quotas, according to the company, holds a firm that has no license to legally represent Mabco for the stock movement.

Therefore, the company highlights that Any document that is not signed by any of the above is not valid and does not represent the Mabco” society.

Another Mabco argument, which has 98% shares, relates to violating Albanian legislation for concession contracts. The company emphasises that the transfer of quotas is considered carried out without first receiving approval from public authorities, underlining that “has not received any approval from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy, as well as the Finance Ministry”.

Similarly, Mabco claims the contract conflicts even with the credit agreement with BKT, where any change in capital structure requires initial written consent of the bank.

2A Group version, minority with 2% saying it is protecting the project

On the other hand, the 2A Group, which holds only 2% of shares, presents itself as the side trying to protect the project from a hidden financial control scheme.

According to the 2A Group, the deal, linked by Mabco, which has 98% shares, with Delphos Sucuriies SARL, Comparte Bernina, represented a mechanism through which the concessional project could be placed under the economic and financial dependence of a third structure.

The minority company says this deal was “a structure through which the concessional project and the VIA society were to be placed under the economic and financial control of a third auto-reservative structure”.

Next, the 2A Group argues that this mechanism posed a risk for majority shareholders to no longer act in the interest of concessionary society, but in the function of lending obligations. She says Mabco “It no longer represented the interest of the concessionary society, of the project or of its shareholders, but it acted as an instrument to realise the obligations it had made to this secret and suspicious structure”.

In the face of this situation, the 2A Group says it has followed the criminal and civil course, by making confessions, by delivering evidence, and by demanding court intervention, since “is unacceptable” that through a secret-related agreement, the possibility that project control be passed to an underlying structure “for which the public doesn't know anything”

Delphos' letter and collapse of “subservative theme”

The 2A Group Narrativa relies on allegations of funding sources and fears of controlling the project by third parties. This is what a formal letter from Delphos, published by Mabco during today, is challenging.

The company itself confirms it is. “established fairly and legally under Luxembourg's Great Duke laws” And that its structure has been raised. “in line with Luxembourg procurement law”. This means that we are dealing with a regulated entity in a European Union jurisdiction, not an unidentified structure or a typical dark fiscal shelter, as the rhetoric of the 2A Group suggests.

Important in Delphos' letter is the classic denial of any link to sanctioned funds. The letter specifically states that “The funds provided under this loan do not stem from and are in no way linked to the Russian Federation, with any entity controlled by Russia, or any person or entity subject to sanctions...”. This statement removes the oxygen thesis of the Russian “comer”, a statement by the lender himself who appears to have taken the lead in a series of media texts that have distributed this thesis.

Likewise, Delphos explains an essential element of the debate, “Vlora International Airport KPS is not a party to contractual relations with lender” i n “ The above quotation directly refutes the claim that the airport, or the concession company itself, has already passed under creditor control.

Another important element of Delphos' commentary is transparency for the entire financial mechanism as a structure filtered out by European supervision. Delphos explains that emissions and “cleration” of instruments are carried out via Euroclear and Clearstream, as resources and funding management go through European Depositary Bank and other licensed bidders in Luxembourg. It says this architecture “leaves no room for any claim on inadequate foreign influence, illegal links or incompatible with the applicable sanctions regimes”.

Delphos admits that he cannot publish the names of the “holders” due to contractor privacy, but gives a further explanation of the importance, Their buyers are located in the European Union and in the United States. Even this further dispels the claim that it is about questionable financing or capital related to sanctioned interests.

A Conflict Where Claims Do Not Count the Same

The 2A Group, while holding only 2% of shares, has the full right to seek transparency for a strategic project, but fails to prove the main charge of a suspicious behind-dark financial scheme.

On the other hand, Mabco, who owns 98% of the shares, supports its version not only with legal arguments but also with a document of the lender himself who denies points for the opposite juncture.

The real battle thus shifts to the background impact on courts, the occult ties with the state leading to the control of a strategic asset on the part of the minority. But in this area, as the Monitor analysis suggests, claims are not all equal. One side raises the alarm to produce public fear, while the other brings a document saying that funds have no connection with Russia, that VIA is not party to the contract and that its assets have not been held hostage.

What remains in the end is strategic investment blocked not by lack of money, nor by lack of interest, but by a corporate struggle where the 2% minority has managed to curb most with 98% through intermediate court decisions and through state ties that should guarantee order, development and a convenient business climate. /Lapsy.al