MPS Foundation blocks the capital increase proposal in January presented by the Board. In the fiery Sienese assembly he voted against 69,06% of the capital present. 49,3% of the capital was present at the meeting, on second call after yesterday's lack of quorum, the same percentage reached yesterday, of which 33,5% belongs to the Foundation. A vote that effectively disavows President Profumo and CEO Viola, even if she is the president of the Foundation Antonella Mansi, arriving at the meeting, specified that “”Ours is not never been an act of distrust in management, I've said it a thousand times and I say it again today”. ”Today there is unfortunately an indisputable need for the institution to look after its own survival and it is our precise responsibility. In any case, we hope that this can be reconciled over time with the interest of the Bank, which we care deeply about because it is our first asset", explained Mansi, whose hope is to still maintain a role of representative shareholder within the future structure of the baca.
And now Profumo's moves are awaited. "These are decisions that are taken in cold blood and in the designated places. Not any anticipation to make to the shareholders”, replied the pressured manager at the end of the meeting, specifying that "there is a board of directors already fixed for the month of January". "I think no one will kick them out: it will be up to them to choose and decide if they still believe in the project that they themselves have prepared - commented the mayor of Siena, Bruno Valentini - it is true that part of their project was rejected but the restructuring has been approved".
As it passed, with 82,04% of the votes present, the proposal of the Foundation itself to proceed with the increase, linked to the restructuring plan and to be completed by 2014 at the request of the EU to repay the Monti bonds, but to do so at the end of the second quarter (June) to allow the Foundation to sell at a reasonable price MPS shares to repay debts with banks.
Consortium permitting. In fact, this was one of the topics that warmed the spirits, namely the possibility of being able to form a new consortium for the deferred increase given that the current one expires at the end of January. By saying no to the capital increase in January ”we are entering a field of uncertainty. AND the first uncertainty 'is the formation of a guarantee consortium', in fact, Profumo had warned by replying in the assembly. "Today we know what clauses the bank guarantee consortium has placed on us, we don't know those of tomorrow", explained Profumo who recalled that without the capital increase in January, the additional cost of 120 million would remain for the shareholders, while with the increase would make it possible to repay 3 billion Monti bonds.
The combative Mansi has a completely different opinion. “It's really very difficult– he said – think that the third largest Italian banking group cannot find in the second window, since May 2014, a consortium of banks capable of supporting the increase, moreover having a generous allocation of commissions”. Not only. Mansi calls to its cause too Brussels which indicated that it would proceed with the increase by 2014, however favoring "the need to identify the best methods and timing" in the interests of all the shareholders and of the bank". “The timing dictated by the European Commission – said President Mansi-, which envisages that the capital increase will close within 2014 (and at the limit within the first quarter of 2015), has taken these aspects into account, however favoring , in the complexity of the contingent situation, the need to identify the best methods and timing for a successful completion of the transaction for the Bank and for all stakeholders". So, of course, also the Foundation.
The intervention of Mansi, vice president of Confindustria who received the consents of the small shareholders, received applause from the assembly where the Sienese soul sided for the no. On the conflict of interest cited by the lawyer Pier Gaetano Marchetti, Mansi replied: "Here we should speak not of a conflict of interest but rather of a conflict of duties" specifying that "For us, the protection of the integrity of assets is not an option", " you cannot ask us to bring down the building that has been given to us by law”.
