ARMA justifies itself for ignoring loan obligations to Oschadbank in the tender for selection of a manager for the Gulliver shopping center

The Asset Recovery and Management Agency has stated that it is not obliged to take into account the asset owner's loan obligations to state-owned banks when organizing a tender for the management of the Gulliver shopping center. This was reported by ARMA in response to a request by UNN.

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.

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. The losses of Oschadbank due to the termination of loan payments could reach more than UAH 20 billion.

In its defense, ARMA stated that the current legislation does not allow the agency to become a creditor or debtor in the obligations of the asset owner.

"In this regard, any transactions (agreements) concluded by the asset owner with third parties do not have any binding force for ARMA and/or the professional manager chosen by it," the agency emphasized.

The ARMA also stated that it had not received any requests to include a clause on loan servicing in state-owned banks in the tender documentation.

However, this argument seems questionable, given that the obligations to the banks should have been taken into account as a basic interest of the state, and the agency knew about them long before the tender was announced. Indeed, in response to a request by UNN, ARMA reported that back in July it had requested information from JSC Oschadbank about the credit and other debts of the company that owns the shopping center, TRI O LLC, to the bank. But the bank, according to the agency, refused to provide this information, so it was obtained from the tax service and law enforcement agencies.

After the tender started, under pressure from the public and the media, ARMA representatives nevertheless decided to meet with Arsen Miliutin, the deputy chairman of the Oschadbank board responsible for NPL management, to discuss the management of the seized asset, which affects the interests of the state-owned bank in terms of repayment of loan debts. However, the meeting failed to reach a consensus, and the parties agreed to "continue cooperation.

This raises the question: Couldn't the interests of the state-owned bank have been taken into account at the preparation stage to avoid risks to its financial condition? The refusal to include loan servicing in the tender conditions looks like a disregard for the state's interests. This sets a dangerous precedent, because Gulliver is the only significant asset of the company that owns TRI O, and without its income, the debt to the bank will remain outstanding.

Although ARMA justifies itself by citing legislative restrictions, the fact remains that the state-owned bank risks losing significant funds, and the agency risks losing confidence in the transparency of asset management.

Add

After the announcement of the tender, Arsen Miliutin, deputy chairman of the board of Oschadbank in charge of NPLs, 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".

The fact that ARMA did not take into account the interests of the state bank was criticized by experts. They see unprofessionalism or a possible corruption component in such actions of the agency's employees and head.