Administradora de Cartera de Occidente, S.A. de C.V. (ACOSA) Clarifies the Information Published on July 7th 2010 by Motormexa, S.A. de C.V. Regarding Grupo Simec, S.A.B. de C.V. (Simec), Rufino Vigil Gonzalez, Motormexa, S.A. de C.V. and the Covarrubias Valenzuela Family

MEXICO CITY, July 16 /PRNewswire/ --

The following clarifications are being issued by Administradora de Cartera de Occidente, S.A. de C.V.:

1.- Administradora de Cartera de Occidente, S.A. de C.V. (ACOSA) is not a subsidiary company of Grupo Simec, S.A.B. de C.V. (SIMEC), and Mr. Rufino Vigil Gonzalez, Chairman of the board of Simec, is not a member of the board of directors of ACOSA.

2.- Years ago, ACOSA initiated legal actions to collect monies owed under a note payable in the principal amount of 200 MILLION US DOLLARS, and second note in the principal amount of 25 MILLION MEXICAN PESOS, filing process #112/2005 of the thirty third court of the federal district of Mexico City (ACOSA VS. MOTORMEXA, S.A. DE C.V. and other related parties) as well as process #115/2005 of the thirty first court of the federal district of Mexico City (ACOSA vs. Jose Luis Covarrubias Valenzuela and Emilio Reyes Perez).

3.- The resolution of these legal processes resulted in a  final ruling (attached) reached after the exhaustion of all appeals in which the Mexican judiciary system has found the Covarrubias Valenzuela family liable for the payment in full of 200 MILLION US DOLLARS and 25 MILLION MEXICAN PESOS plus interest, resulting in a total amount due of over 330 MILLION US DOLLARS and 59 MILLION MEXICAN PESOS at present value.

4.- To this day, none of the money found by the court to be owed has been paid by the Covarrubias Valenzuela family or Motormexa to ACOSA.  Nor was any of the money due to Banca Cremi, Banco del Oriente, and Banco Interestatal, who were the original lenders of the money, as certified by the 53 notes payable (Attached) that these same banks gave to ACOSA under a contract signed in 2003. (Attached is the contract) which were then converted into the 200 MILLION US DOLLAR note.

5.- Under this contract ACOSA has the obligation to pursue the collection of these notes and share 50% of the monies collected with the Instituto de Proteccion al Ahorro Bancario (IPAB), an institution that is part of the Mexican Government, which means that not only does the Covarrubias Valenzuela family have an unpaid liability to ACOSA, but also to the IPAB for an amount in excess of 160 MILLION US DOLLARS. (Attached is a copy of the ruling).

6.- The defendants, the Covarrubias Valenzuela family, based their defense against payment of the notes on false allegations claiming that the signatures on the notes were forged. The independent expert witness appointed at trial by the court as the last and definitive expert upon which the final ruling regarding the forgery claims was to be based testified in court (Attached is the testimony) that the signatures on the note were the valid signatures of Mr. Juan Arturo Covarrubias Valenzuela and Mr. Ricardo Covarrubias Valenzuela. This testimony was critical to the decision of the court finding the Covarrubias Valenzuela family liable to pay all the amounts due to ACOSA.

7.- As part of the Covarrubias Valenzuela family strategy to avoid paying their debts, three legal actions were filed against Mr. Rufino Vigil Gonzalez and not against ACOSA. Two of the legal actions were filed in Mexico City and one in the state of Jalisco. The Covarrubias Valenzuela family continued to make false allegations claiming that the signatures that appear on the notes were forged. The General Attorney's Office of Mexico City stated that there were no grounds to support any legal action against Mr. Vigil Gonzalez. In total, the Covarrubias Valenzuela family tried three different times to appeal and modify that decision.

8.- One of the above mentioned legal actions was then reopened. The court was never provided with the documents relating to the ruling rejecting the forgery defense that was repeatedly granted in favor of ACOSA, nor was this court made aware that this case had already been tried and the court's decision in favor of Rufino Vigil Gonzalez had been upheld though appeal, actions that clearly evidence the dubious and very questionable way in which the Covarrubias Valenzuela family and its attorneys acted to obtain the  warrant that has been issued, and that Mr. Vigil Gonzalez's attorneys have taken immediate steps to challenge and get withdrawn.

9.- Both ACOSA and Mr. Rufino Vigil Gonzalez are conferring with counsel to determine the steps necessary to pursue defamation claims in connection with this matter, both in Mexico and in the United States of America.

More to come on the following:

ACOSA will inform the new developments of the trials against Motormexa, the Covarrubias Valenzuela family, and the Covarrubias del Cueto family and the implications for Chrysler.

For additional information, go to http://www.motormexacovarrubias.com/.

SOURCE ACOSA