We write for and on behalf of Bryvarc Limited.

We refer to your article entitled “Bryvarc people not new to what they did in Gozo” (TMIS, 20 February).

We are instructed by our client to take this opportunity to clarify what, in its opinion, caused the closure of the Gozo operation and this in the light of the fact that there seems to be a great misconception on the part of the general public in this regard, which is unfortunately based on one-sided articles and reports that have been published in the media throughout the last months.

The decision taken by the company to invest in the Gozo plant was one that was primarily based on the many unkept promises made by Malta Enterprise in the negotiation stages that led to the opening of this operation. Our client, among other things, were promised an efficient transport system between the islands which did not materialise, an adequate supply of electricity to the highly sophisticated machinery being operated in the plant, which alas was repeatedly interrupted and which at times caused the complete halt of production and led to various technical problems; an adequate air-conditioning system and adequately trained staff, which also never materialised. Unfortunately, with regard to the latter, our client was allocated workers with no adequate training and who were totally unaware of the workings of its type of business. The untrained staff continuously made mistakes in the production which also led to loss of revenue.

The above-mentioned issues have caused Bryvarc Limited enormous problems vis-à-vis its international customers and this to the extent that Bryvarc Limited lost all its important contracts signed by clients in Italy, England, Morocco and Germany.

If our client had received what was actually promised, the company would not have lost its image and its money in the international market in which it operated and would not have had any interest to cease its investment in Malta.

Furthermore, our client would like to emphasise that the money Bryvarc Limited received from Malta Enterprise and Bank of Valletta was used directly to purchase millions of euro worth of machinery, which is now sitting idle in the Malta plant, and our client can vouch that no money was pocketed by anyone through this operation. Had our client been given more time by the authorities and the bank to come up with a feasible solution, which we firmly believe could have been done, all this would not have happened. Instead our client was immediately faced with warrants of seizure and garnishes orders which did not permit the operation to go ahead.

Our client has tried to find a solution to unblock the situation with Malta Enterprise, which also included a proposal to pay all its debts in Malta and a re-negotiation of the loan agreements and a recommencement of the operation in Malta (as opposed to Gozo), but it seems that there is no intention on their part to find a solution.

With regard to that part in your article in which you state that “Dr (Justyne) Caruana asked the minister what steps were being taken to protect the interests of the employees. Minister Fenech replied that talks are being held with the company in question, but that it was ‘not ideal’ to reveal what progress had been made at this stage,” our client reiterates that it has never been approached by government with regard to the payment of wages of the employees; in fact it was our same client who proposed that it was ready to continue its operation in Malta and pay all the debts, including the relative wages, once it would be allowed to continue its operation in Malta (with the provision of adequate infrastructure) with a new wave of investment by the shareholders of the company, a proposal that was refused outright by Malta Enterprise.

With regard to the PK issue mentioned in your article, this company was bought in December 2008 by Bryvarc Italia, of which Antonio Faranda and Carlo Faranda were, together with others, directors, and in February 2009 an action was filed against the vendors of this same company as in the initial months of the operation they were made aware of debts that had been hidden from them in the negotiation stage of this sale. Furthermore, they found that there had been false credits amounting to three million euro. This led to the company’s closure, as it was evident that the vendors had fraudulently sold the company under false pretences. They have in fact sued the vendors for this and have already been successful in recovering 80 per cent of the purchase price in regard to a section of the vendors and with regard to the other section the case is set for hearing in March 2011. This in fact shows that PK was not “a completely healthy company” as you quote in your article. Furthermore, the vendors have opened a new company that was competing with PK and this contrary to what has been agreed to in the contract of sale and legal action will also be taken in this regard.

Dr Adrian Camilleri

Dr Edward Zammit Lewis

ZammitLewis Advocates

VALLETTA