Court closes Gorokhovsky’s lawsuit against Privabank

[ad_1]

The basis of this decision was the “Kolomicsky” law

Court closes Gorokhovsky’s lawsuit against Privabank

The Economic Court of Kiev, by a July 14 ruling, closed the proceedings on the claim of Prevetbank’s ex-minority shareholder Oleg Gorokhovsky, the co-founder of the first mobile bank, Monobank. It is reported that the first businessman held 0.3236% of the financial institution’s shares.

In a suit against PrivatBank, Ministry of Finance and Deposit Guarantee Fund, Gorokhovsky demanded that contracts for the sale and purchase of shares of the financial institution be recognized as invalid, the report Interfax With reference to the press service of the bank.

By definition in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, Privetbank was the initiator to close the case. He relied on the provisions of “Law on Banks” adopted in May 2020, no. 590-IX is known as “Kolomikiski”.

At the same time, the materials indicate that the plea is not a prerequisite to resolve the issue of termination of the proceedings, as the court, if there are grounds, is obliged to do so.

It is also noted that the only way to protect former shareholders, whose rights and interests were violated as a result of a bankrupt bank’s withdrawal from the market or liquidation of a financial institution, is compensation for damages in cash.

It is reported that similar claims against the Deposit Guarantee Fund, Ministry of Finance and PrivatBank at the end of December 2019 are ex-minority shareholders and former top managers of PrivatBank: Timur Novikov (owned 1.3625% shares as of March 31, 2016) Were filed by Yatsenko (0.3229%), Tatiana Gureva (0.2422%), Lyudmila Schmelchenko (0.1614%) and others.

The former top manager of PrivatBank also disputes the bail process – forcible conversion of its deposits into new shares of the bank, which was released during its nationalization in December 2016, and then by the state (submitted by the Ministry of Finance) to all. Was purchased with UAH 1. “Old” shares of the bank (total – 100%).

As reported, in 2017–2018, former minority shareholders of Privabank applied to the Pechersk District Court of Kiev with claims against the state, but it refused to consider related claims citing the fact That such disputes should be resolved in courts of economic jurisdiction.

Earlier, the Kiev Economic Court first enacted the “anti-Kolomoki” law – on June 12, the judge closed proceedings in two cases over the bank’s former shareholders’ claims of invalidating the purchase and sale agreements for the financial institution’s shares Having satisfied PrivatBank’s applications.

“This is the first real application of banking law number 590-IX by Ukrainian courts,” PrivateBank’s press service told Pespace magazine.

This was on LLC’s claim regarding number 910/17630/19. No. 910/13541/19 on a similar claim from Revat, and LLC KS Group against PrivatBank on invalidating agreements concluded as a result of PrivatBank’s withdrawal from the market. These plaintiffs’ funds were converted into the capital of PrivatBank (bell-in) before its nationalization.

Paypal magazine help

On 13 May, Verkhovna Rada adopted a second way of reading the draft law on banking regulation, also known as “anti-Kolomisci”. According to the explanatory note, the law makes provision for the imperative of the procedure to withdraw a bank from the market, as the National Bank’s related decision cannot be quashed or suspended by a court ruling. Zombie banks will not be able to return to the market, and the owners will not be able to return themselves to the bankrupt bank.

In addition, the document limits the amount of potential compensation for former owners of banks, as it clearly defines the necessary conditions and procedure for obtaining any further compensation. At the same time, as the National Bank notes, the bank’s owner will not become defenseless in front of the state. He will be able to go to court and, if he proves the illegality of the NBU’s decision, he will be able to receive compensation for the loss. To do this, it is necessary to confirm in court that some capital remained in the bank at the time of withdrawal from the market.

Read:
Brought to bankruptcy: court allows arrest of former owner of controversial bank
How to choose a bank card for your lifestyle
Smartphone Wallet: Top 5 Myths About Paying with a Mobile Account
Bank responsible for sustainable development: UKRSIBBANK celebrates 30 years in the market

According to the material finbalance.com.ua

Donate papens magazine

[ad_2]
Source link

Leave a Reply