The head of the Asset Search and Management Agency, Olena Duma, criticized the actions of the participants in the competition for the selection of a manager for the Kyiv shopping and entertainment center "Gulliver" and essentially called into question the objectivity of the decisions of the Antimonopoly Committee, writes UNN.
Details
Olena Duma published a post on her Telegram channel, in which she claims that complaints about the competition conditions from two legal entities have signs of manipulation. At the same time, the head of ARMA hinted that the AMCU "in a strange way" satisfies precisely those complaints that, according to her, were filed by related companies.
"Meanwhile, the AMCU left more than 4 complaints from other participants without consideration, and another one was withdrawn by the complainant himself. It seems that someone was very "lucky" with the consideration of complaints in the AMCU from persons related to each other," she said.
According to Duma's logic, if a competition participant sees possible violations on the part of ARMA, he cannot file complaints, because this is "manipulation". However, the attempts of the head of the agency to put pressure on the Antimonopoly Committee and create doubts about the independence of its work are more reminiscent of manipulation.
It is also worth noting that the AMCU, having considered two complaints about the competition conditions, recognized them as discriminatory and obliged ARMA to make changes to the tender documentation. We are talking about criteria regarding the property status of participants, the number of employees and experience in managing similar facilities.
However, an analysis of the changes in the tender documentation shows that ARMA not only did not fulfill the requirements of the AMCU, but also added several more discriminatory conditions. In particular, regarding the available experience in leasing facilities to foreign representative offices, which, by the way, was not in the previous version.
Probably, by trying to put pressure on the AMCU, Duma is trying to cover up her own failures in conducting the competition for the selection of a manager for the Gulliver shopping and entertainment center or to fulfill someone's order.
Reminder
ARMA announced a competition on October 30 to select a manager for the Gulliver shopping and entertainment center. The head of the agency, Olena Duma, proudly stated that she approached the selection of a manager for this high-profile asset as strictly as possible and even set the maximum possible 4 criteria for candidates.
However, experts criticized the establishment of very "narrow" criteria for potential managers of seized property, as in the case of the competition for the management of the Gulliver shopping and entertainment center, as this can limit competition and call into question the transparency of the process.
In addition, when announcing the competition, the Asset Search and Management Agency did not take into account the fact that the Gulliver shopping and entertainment center building is collateral for a mortgage loan in state banks, including Oschadbank. However, among the criteria set by ARMA, there is no mention of the need to pay the loan.
Oschadbank has repeatedly stated that the decision to transfer Gulliver to ARMA harms the interests of the state bank, as it will deprive it of payments on the loan from the owner company of the Kyiv complex. The income not received by Oschadbank due to the termination of loan payments may reach more than 20 billion hryvnias.
After the announcement of the competition, the Deputy Chairman of the Board of Oschadbank, responsible for work with NPL Arsen Miliutin, in a comment to UNN stated that the state bank plans to recover the building of the Kyiv shopping and entertainment center "Gulliver" in its favor if ARMA transfers it to management. He expressed outrage that instead of payments on the loan to state banks, the income from Gulliver will be given to an "incomprehensible manager".
Only after this and under public pressure, ARMA representatives decided to meet with the Deputy Chairman of the Board of Oschadbank, responsible for work with NPL, Arsen Miliutin, to discuss the issues of managing the seized asset that affect the interests of the state bank in terms of debt repayment. As expected, a consensus was not reached at the meeting, and the parties agreed to "continue cooperation". Miliutin reported that at the meeting in ARMA, they promised to "study in detail" the relevant regulations again to determine the possibility of including payments to creditor banks in the management costs.
However, it is worth noting that the rhetoric of ARMA after this meeting has not changed dramatically - they continue to justify themselves that the current legislation does not allow the agency to become a creditor or debtor in the obligations of the asset owner.