Another Ruling Against the Government in Nationalization of PrivatBank Case
This second decision follows on the heels of a previous decision handed down by the court
Photo from National Bank of Ukraine
Kyiv’s District Administrative Court issued one more ruling on April 18 regarding the procedure for nationalization of PrivatBank. This ruling, like the previous one, came out against the government in the nationalization of the bank, the press service of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) has reported.
“Kyiv’s District Administrative Court on April 18 issued another ruling on the procedure for the nationalization of PrivatBank in the case No. 826/13813/17, which fully satisfied the claim of Cyprus-based Triantal Investments, Ltd., a company controlled by Ihor Kolomoisky, a former shareholder of PrivatBank. In particular, the plaintiff’s claims were satisfied in terms of the cancellation of the National Bank decision No. 105 of December 13, 2016, which defined the list of individuals and legal entities connected with PrivatBank,” the statement reads.
According to the central bank, this decision by the NBU is one of the main issues in the process of the withdrawal of insolvent PrivatBank from the market with the participation of the state in December 2016. The NBU recalled that a bail-in procedure was carried out during this process, and it concerns the exchange of funds of individuals associated with the bank for the bank’s shares and their subsequent sale to the Ukrainian Finance Ministry.
“The National Bank is concerned about the quality and outcome of litigation in Ukraine that could lead to losses of taxpayers’ funds and risks to the banking and financial stability of the country. This may lead to the fact that persons associated with former shareholders of PrivatBank will have grounds to collect from the bank the funds returned by the state to the capital of the bank in the process of its nationalization,” Head of the Department of Claims of the NBU’s Legal Department Viktor Hryhorchuk said.
He added that the court decision had not yet come into force and “of course, we will appeal it in the near future.”