“Agreed to agree": will ARMA manage to preserve Oschadbank's interests in the tender for the manager of the Gulliver shopping center

Employees of the Asset Recovery and Management Agency decided to meet with a representative of Oschadbank a week before the end of the tender for the selection of a manager for the Gulliver shopping center in Kyiv to discuss the issue of ensuring the interests of the state bank. However, it seems that no agreements were reached, UNN writes.

Details

On October 30, ARMA announced a competition to select a manager for the Gulliver shopping center. The head of the agency, Olena Duma, proudly stated that she had taken the strictest possible approach to the selection of a manager for this high-profile asset and even set the maximum possible 4 criteria for candidates. Among the conditions to be fulfilled by the bidders are property worth at least UAH 100 million, a professional team, proven experience in managing similar facilities, and proven financial solvency.

The building of the Gulliver shopping center is pledged as collateral for a mortgage loan with state-owned banks, including Oschadbank. However, among the criteria set out by the ARMA, there is no mention of the need to repay the loan.

Oshchadbank has repeatedly stated that the decision to transfer Gulliver to ARMA harms the interests of the state-owned bank, as it will deprive it of loan payments from the company that owns the capital's complex. Oschadbank's losses due to the termination of loan payments could reach more than UAH 20 billion.

After the announcement of the tender, Arsen Miliutin, deputy chairman of the board of Oschadbank in charge of NPL, said in a commentary to UNN that the state-owned bank plans to recover the building of the capital's Gulliver shopping center in its favor if ARMA transfers it to management. He expressed indignation that instead of paying the loan to state banks, Gulliver's earnings would be given to an "incomprehensible manager".

"We will apply for foreclosure on the facility. It's ridiculous, they (ARMA - ed.) understood the position of state-owned banks from day one, and they act as if the position of state-owned banks does not exist. Why should we appeal to anyone? Why didn't they take this into account? When developing the documentation, they should have taken into account the position of state-owned banks, why didn't they? Why do we have to run after ARMA and beg for something? We will foreclose on the facility, that's all," he said.

After the media coverage, ARMA, in fact, in the middle of the competition for the selection of a manager , remembered about the state bank and its interests and sent a letter to Oschadbank.

A week before the end of the tender, the agency's employees "took the initiative" and held a working meeting with Arsen Miliutin, deputy chairman of the board of Oschadbank  responsible for working with NPLs.

Reportedly, during the meeting, the parties discussed the management of the seized asset, which affects the interests of the state-owned Oschadbank in terms of repayment of loan debts.

"Following the meeting, a decision was made to continue cooperation between ARMA and Oschadbank in order to resolve all disputes and ensure the public interest," the agency said after the meeting.

From these brief summaries, it becomes clear that the parties have "agreed to negotiate." Obviously, one meeting is not enough to resolve the disputed issues. However, the question arises - why does ARMA start acting only under pressure from the media and society and "initiate" negotiations with a state-owned bank that could potentially lose billions due to an inefficient decision just a week before the end of the tender?