The first was the creation of a hivingoff structure

The head of the Consortium de realisation (CDR) since 2001, Jean-Pierre Aubert takes stock of its four years of "Les echos" exercise while the hiving-off structure prepares to move into the fold of the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (CDC).

With was hindsight, the creation of a hiving-off structure the best solution to save the Crédit Lyonnais

At the time, in the situation of the Credit Lyonnais, there were two acceptable solutions. The first was the creation of a hiving-off structure. In the 1980s, the American authorities had made the same choice to save their savings. This solution had the advantage of spreading the loss over time, with this drawback, the lifetime of this structure is necessarily very long, some eventually, over time, confuse the firefighters and the arsonists. Public authorities could also opt for a capital increase which the amount would have been massive but lower than that of the loss. There was also more radical solutions such as the sale of the Bank by apartments, which might have been the least bad solutions for public finances but which ignored the social problem, or the filing of balance, that it was unrealistic to advocate because of the risk he would run in the international banking system.

Do you have regrets

We could not transform lead into gold! Seriously, my biggest regret will remain the Adidas judgment delivered on 30 September 2005 by the Court of appeal of Paris, condemning the CDR to pay 135 million euros to the Bernard Tapie group. We have not come to fight the falsehood argued by Bernard Tapie and his lawyers of uptake by Credit Lyonnais of the capital gain realised on the sale of Adidas. Overall, however, the hiving-off structure has worked well. More than 2,000 litigious matters, which were more than ten years almost all have already been definitely processed. CDR won half of his files and lost one in ten only interacted four out of ten on reasonable terms.

You have filed an appeal in cassation concerning this Adidas case the verdict is scheduled July 11. Do you win

This decision is open to criticism at least on two points. First, the Court of Appeal based the compensation of the Bernard Tapie Group on its lack of funding by Credit Lyonnais, which would make him lose a chance to gain. So far as I know, no legal provision requires a bank to lend to the debtor. The criticism is all the more paradoxical that this Bank is at the same time continued to undue support to the same debtor! On the other hand, constant jurisprudence of the Court of cassation decided that a loss of chance can not recover 100 and that it must be assessed on the basis of the likelihood of its realization. However, in this case, the probability was close to zero.

In cassation from the judgment, is a new mediation possible

Why not Then, the balance would be restored. But negotiations could commit and a transaction could intervene only to reasonable conditions, i.e. on the basis of the abandonment of his claim and supported by the CDR of the third-party liabilities not covered by the liquidation assets. I would be prepared to conduct this discussion with the liquidators of the Bernard Tapie group and to work to achieve before the end of my mandate to the Consortium of the project.

How do you explain that if few convictions have been handed down since the beginning of the Credit Lyonnais case

CDR sent to justice more criticism facts which he had knowledge but it is the courts should decide cases often very old: in the case of IBSA (International Bankers SA), complaint goes back to 1994 and the hearing is expected for 2007. in the case of Marland, public action was initiated in 1995 but the trial was closed recently. As Alain Mallard, it has to be indicted. Arguably, it's a problem of overcrowding. The lack of justice is.

Do you still think that Executive Life accord with us justice was the best

Entirely. In the end, the CDR paid civil EUR 600 million and EUR 100 million to pay the administrative penalty paid by the Credit Lyonnais to the Federal Reserve. In view of the State of the file, the transaction between the COR and American justice was the best possible solution. Subsequent events tend to confirm, including transactions entered into by large US banks in the Enron case, the amounts are ten times higher.

That you reply to those who criticize the amount of the fees of lawyers paid by the CDR, including in Executive Life

The Executive Life case has cost, it is true, EUR 120 million in legal fees since its beginning in 1999 and, between 1995 and 2005, the total amount of the fees of lawyers paid by the COR amounted to EUR 280 million. It is said that with the MGM record, which had cost 50 million euros in the years 1995 to 1999, two American records accounted for almost two-thirds of the cost of lawyers paid by the COR. For the 2,600 other folders, the CDR has paid a total of EUR 110 million, or an average unit cost of 38.500 euro. I is less than a conclusion: American justice has a cost without common measure with French justice!

But why not have dealt earlier

To compromise, it takes two!