Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
Case of the bank “Ukrincom,” which “ran away” from the Deposit Guarantee Fund
In the Supreme Court, a case on the bankruptcy of PJSC “Ukrincom,” the business of Volodymyr Klymenko, who is known for, bypassing laws and court decisions, presenting himself as the successor to the bank. And also for insisting on his own financial solvency, on the groundlessness of removing “Ukrinbank” from the market, and at the same time… unable to cope with a debt of about 100 billion hryvnias.
This is written by Viktor Novikov, Deputy Director–Executive Director of the Deposit Guarantee Fund for Individuals.
The case, which is being heard by a special chamber of the Supreme Court, not only sheds light on the managerial characteristics of the owners of “Ukrinbank,” who are pushing the second financial institution toward bankruptcy. It resembles an attempt to put “Ukrincom” into controlled bankruptcy and thus finally rid themselves of the bank’s debt obligations to the state and its creditors.
The National Bank recognized PJSC “Ukrinbank” as insolvent on the verge of 2015-2016 years. Having seized control over the bank, the Deposit Guarantee Fund settled with practically all of its depositors, paying 1,8 billion UAH. As soon as depositors received funds from the Fund, the shareholders of “Ukrinbank” began challenging the removal of the bank through the courts and, after obtaining a court decision, made changes to the Unified State Register (EDR). They re-registered it as a non-bank financial institution and took assets under their control. The bank was renamed to PJSC “Ukrincom,” its address was changed from Kyiv to Sievierodonetsk (now occupied), and access of the Deposit Guarantee Fund to the assets from which funds were to be returned to the state and the bank’s creditors was blocked. Thus, the return to creditors of the bank was frozen at about 3 billion UAH, of which 1,8 billion were funds borrowed from the state.
Since then, the former owner of Ukrinbank publicly emphasizes that, allegedly, just give us a chance — and we will immediately settle with all creditors. Describing his strategic aim as paying money to all creditors and depositors when access to these funds and assets is obtained after victory in all courts, and debt collection from all debtors. Of course, while constantly omitting the fact that the bank’s assets were moved by “Ukrincom” out from under the Fund’s control several years ago. For example, in the materials of the same bankruptcy case of PJSC “Ukrincom” (913/266/20) it is noted that the company with which Ukrincom did not settle, and at whose lawsuit his bankruptcy was initiated, in 2020 year carried out repairs in Kyiv in the former building of “Ukrinbank” on its order. In other words, all these years PJSC “Ukrincom” effectively controls perhaps the most liquid asset of the bank.
Remarkably, the shareholders of “Ukrincom” continue to ignore the fact that banking law does not recognize the concept of “successor,” as confirmed by both judicial and legislative decisions. In particular, a decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court from 10 December 2019 of the year in the case 925/698/16 and the Law 590-IX “On amendments to certain legal acts of Ukraine regarding the improvement of certain mechanisms of regulating banking activity,” adopted in 2020 year.
By the way, the mentioned law allowed returning under the management of the Fund and resuming liquidation procedures for a number of “zombie banks” that also challenged their removal from the market and were removed from Fund control. Including JSC “Zlatobank,” where a similar situation occurred — the decision on recognizing it insolvent was challenged, the liquidation procedure blocked, which forced the Deposit Guarantee Fund to halt settlements with depositors and creditors. In 2019 year, the shareholders renamed the bank to PJSC “Zlato,” changed the legal entity’s location, and attempted to start bankruptcy proceedings for the bank in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code, which does not regulate banks’ bankruptcy in any way. However, after the enactment of law 590-IX, in February 2021, the Deposit Guarantee Fund regained control over it and resumed settlements with creditors.
It was the Supreme Court’s special chamber in November 2021-th year, when reviewing the bankruptcy of Zlatobank, that reached clear conclusions: the annulment of decisions by the NBU and the Fund, which formed the basis for removing the bank from the market, does not deprive the bank of the status of a banking institution and, accordingly, general bankruptcy procedures do not apply to such a bank. A bank that entered the removal procedure is liquidated only in a special manner established by the Law of Ukraine “On the System of Guaranteed Repayment of Deposits.”
Source: ukr.net
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Справа банку «Укрінком», який «втік» від Фонду гарантування вкладів". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: ANTIKOR.
