“The decision is not clear": Oschadbank says transfer of Gulliver shopping center to ARMA harms the bank's interests

The court's decision to transfer the Gulliver shopping center to the management of the ARMA is detrimental to the interests of Oschadbank, as it will deprive the bank of loan payments from the company that owns the capital's complex. This was stated by the chairman of the board of Oschadbank, Serhiy Naumov, in an interview with RBC-Ukraine, UNN reports .

There is a court decision to transfer the capital's Gulliver shopping center to the management of the National Asset Recovery and Management Agency (ARMA). But the decision is not clear. I consider the situation to be detrimental to the bank's interests and deprives the bank of loan payments that have been coming from the borrower all this time,

According to him, the bank did not lose the mall as collateral, as it is only a matter of transferring the complex to the management of the ARMA and the agency cannot sell this asset. Therefore, from a legal point of view, everything remains as it was.

Naumov also said that Oschadbank is considering several scenarios for further development of the situation.

The most favorable scenario for the bank in terms of NPV (Net Present Value) will be implemented. The first scenario is a liquidation scenario, with the enforcement of debt and collateral. For Oschadbank, this would mean the loss of most of the loan. The next scenario is debt restructuring. It is unclear how this will happen, but we will fight for the loan,

Gulliver's case on alleged tax evasion sent to court - BES7/25/24, 7:19 PM

Context

In early June, the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv granted the Prosecutor General's Office's motion and allowed the transfer of the Gulliver complex to the ARMA. However, representatives of Gulliver claimthat this decision grossly violates procedural and substantive law and actually means a business takeover with the assistance of law enforcement and security agencies.

It is not yet clear how this situation will develop further, as representatives of the company that owns the complex are arguing in court that this decision is groundless and illegal.