It now seems that the situation has come to a showdown. Atlantia, for its part, is confident in the Prime Minister’s equilibrium because, he warns, “a possible revocation” of the concession “would cause a systemic default of over € 16.5 billion, in addition to the blocking of investments. They would come like this 7 thousand jobs put at serious risk“.
From the new meeting between the Prime Minister with the Ministers of Infrastructure and Transport and the Economy, in addition to the heads of the cabinet of the same ministries and the Prime Minister, the decision emerges allow more time: a council of ministers will be convened within 10 days on Aspi, according to what is learned from government sources, but if Atlantia does not change its position, the option of revocation remains on the table of the concession; if a proposal arrives, it will be evaluated.
From the executive it transpires “irritation” for Aspi’s letters and their arguments are rejected: The key point is that Atlantia changed the conditions that led to an agreement in July. But the company is not there and defends itself. “We will continue to act in total good faith so that a fair, reasonable, market solution can be found. The company trusts in the mediation capacity and balance of the President Conte and of his government, considering it a reference of guarantee for all “, say sources of Atlantia, while rumors about a possible final mediation by CDP to find a way out on the issue of indemnity.
Meanwhile, against Atlantia the Committee in memory of the 43 victims of the Morandi Bridge: “This company should get on its knees and sprinkle its head with ashes, we are scandalized by so much arrogance”, says the president Eagle possett, which is pressing on the government asking to assess “that the original concession can be declared illegitimate”. Atlantia and Aspi in their letters highlight the consistency of their commitments and confirm their willingness to negotiate with CDP, but also clarify various conditions: from the fact that the sale of Aspi can be concluded following the settlement agreement; they express their opposition to the clause that binds the effectiveness of the deed to the transfer of control of Aspi to Cdp, considered “not in line” with either the deed or the commitments of 14 July; they say ‘no’ to the indemnities requested by Cdp as they were not foreseen and are not acceptable in a market context.
– .
