The valuation of property transferred to the Asset Recovery and Management Agency should be based on legal procedures, which, among other things, include a physical inspection of the object. If the procedure is carried out without inspection, this may call into question the objectivity of the assessment and become the basis for its appeal. This was stated in an exclusive commentary to UNN by Serhiy Lysenko, attorney at law, managing partner of GRACERS Law Firm.
He explained that, according to the law, the procedure for appraising property transferred to ARMA should include three main stages: selecting an appraiser at a tender, concluding a contract with the appraiser, and inspecting the property.
According to the regulations, property valuation usually requires a physical inspection to ensure that the data for the valuation is objective and complete. This is especially important for real estate or large objects such as shopping centers
However, according to him, there are cases when a site visit is not possible, for example, due to a court injunction or other restrictions. In such cases, the valuation can be made on the basis of documents or other data, such as technical documentation, financial documents, and information from open sources.
However, such an approach may call into question the objectivity of the valuation, since the appraiser is not able to directly verify the condition of the object, which may affect its value
For example, as was the case with the valuation of the Gulliver shopping center in Kyiv. As you know, even the Asset Recovery and Management Agency itself did not conduct an inspection of the asset.
If, in the case of the Gulliver shopping center, the appraiser did not conduct a physical inspection and relied only on documents or other data sources, this may be grounds for challenging the appraisal results. Physical inspection is especially important for large commercial properties, where the condition of the building, its occupancy by tenants, technical condition and other factors can significantly affect the market value. Thus, it is formally possible, but it is not the best option and may be subject to legal disputes
Context
Recently, the head of the ARMA, Olena Duma , reportedthat the agency had received an appraiser's report on the value of the Gulliver shopping center in Kyiv. However, despite the requirement of the law, the register of seized property does not contain any information on the valuation of this asset. In addition, it is known that ARMA employees were not able to conduct a full inspection of the entire Gulliver shopping center and business center. After all, after the performance with the cover numbers, “mom's agents” were still forced to act in accordance with the law. Accordingly, if a full inspection of the asset has not been carried out, how can its value be objectively assessed?
But this is not the only question to ARMA in the case of the Gulliver shopping center assessment. It is also unclear what criteria were used by ARMA to select Business Consulting as the winner and what remuneration the company will receive for its work. Aside from Olena Duma's statement that the competition was “transparent,” no information about it can be found.