Dispute continues between Enviro, Infiniteria over waste tire pyrolysis JV

Stockholm — A dispute between Scandinavian Enviro Systems and joint venture partner Infiniteria is escalating, with the latter planning to seek termination of Enviro’s ongoing company reorganisation and challenging the validity of recently terminated JV agreements.

In a 15 April statement, Enviro said it has been informed that Infiniteria intends to request the Gothenburg District Court to end the reorganisation “with immediate effect.”

Infiniteria's principal grounds, Enviro said, are that the purpose of the reorganisation cannot be expected to be achieved and that it would be “inequitable towards Infiniteria to allow the reorganisation to continue.”

In addition, Infiniteria has indicated its intention to vote against any reorganisation plan proposed by the Swedish end-of-life tire (ELT) pyrolysis company.

Enviro's reorganisation was ordered by the Gothenburg District Court on 27 Feb, following a legal action against it by Infinteria joint venture partners. (ERJ report)

On 20 March, Enviro said it had decided to terminate agreements linked to the Infiniteria joint venture as part of its court-supervised restructuring. (ERJ report)

At the time, the company said the move aimed to release it from “burdensome and loss-making commitments” and enable a “long-term sustainable business.”

According to Enviro’s latest release, Infiniteria, however, disputes the validity of those terminations and has signalled potential damages claims “preliminarily assessed” at €84 million.

Enviro noted that the calculations partly overlap with claims already raised in ongoing arbitration proceedings, and that no formal damages claim related to the terminations has yet been filed.

Enviro rejected the position taken Infiniteria, saying the “assessment is based on incomplete and incorrect assumptions, leading to conclusions that Enviro considers to be unfounded and… strongly disagrees with.”

The tire recycler said it is reviewing the situation with advisors and the court-appointed administrator and will respond “in accordance with the instructions of the district court.”