Valencia Court of First Instance No. 1 has since last July 11 on the table a letter from Prensa Ibérica, a newspaper under the same editorial group, seeking injunctive measures against Superdeporte. Valencia CF faces an urgent demand. The risk of economic bankruptcy and possible dissolution hangs over the club.
The letter sent to the court rests on an expert report about the club’s patrimonial status. The judge ordered 100 million euros in funds for the lawsuit that would move forward if the sale of the majority stake to Meriton Holdings in 2014 is declared invalid. Although a preliminary hearing is scheduled for February 16, a hearing will be held at the City of Justice on September 7 at 09:30, following a lawsuit filed by Jaime Navarro’s legal team on behalf of a Mestalla club member.
In the prior hearing, the Foundation and Meriton curiously pressed for the 100 million euro provision, a sum that could become a sword of Damocles, suggesting grounds for termination. The amount corresponds to the share price, and Meriton is expected to respond by June 30, during a lawsuit that may stretch for years. Since the plaintiff did not fully know the consequences of cancellation, the claim remained uncertain and no demand was made.
The expert report underlying the judicial administration request for Valencia CF notes that the club’s own auditors recorded asset reductions of 10,238,000 euros due to losses from previous years. This figure is less than half of the 21,591,000 euro capital, a technical trigger for potential termination. The auditors also flag 23,883,000 contingencies that were left unanswered because club management did not believe the events leading up to them would occur.
The data analyzed by the expert reflect the situation as of June 30, 2021, before the December 16 capital increase when 6,249,939 shares were issued. The injection raised capital by 37,499,000 euros. The equity imbalance was addressed, but the outstanding provision was added and the estimated loss, around 50 million euros, was publicly acknowledged by Layhoon a few weeks earlier.
The lawsuit alleges that Valencia CF was sold without the buyer incurring any economic, social, sporting, or liability obligations. It also claims the sale was opaque and questions why Meriton Holdings was chosen while other applicants were rejected, even if some were never considered in the process.
Jaime Navarro notes that the defendants themselves placed Valencia CF in a serious risk of dissolution, given that the club’s capital stood at around 59 million euros and the company posted at least 50 losses in the latest completed fiscal year ending 06/30/22.
According to these calculations, losses tied to the “extraordinary disposal of an entire Valencia CF shareholding without the buyer taking any obligations” could reach 150 million euros. The plaintiffs warn that without precautionary measures the club could disappear and that no remedy could be available later, which is a central aim of the case.
Another claim is that the only document submitted by the defendant was the share purchase deed, and to add confusion, a number that may correspond to a NIE appeared as Meriton’s tax ID. It is asserted that Meriton’s domicile is not in Singapore, as often misrepresented, but in a Hong Kong tax haven, and the so-called “Site” refers to the residence of numerous offshore entities.
In the same deed, it is acknowledged that Meriton Holdings does not even have a clear corporate purpose. Page 14 notes several shares with missing mandatory ownership details, indicating occasional gaps. The filing also cites massive loans, benefits, guarantees, or public subsidies that Valencia CF received from the majority state shareholder Bankia or the Valencia Institute of Finance. A review under the Transparency and Good Governance Act, including related provisions, should transparently disclose why Meriton Holdings was chosen and why other interested parties were excluded.
This newspaper has tried to obtain an official response from the club, which declined to comment publicly. Other sources suggest the case may move quickly, but the outcome of the upcoming hearing remains uncertain until the magistrate hears the arguments from all sides.