Recent Posts
- Ukraine recovery should be based on development of territorial communities, innovations, involvement of professional domestic community – results of ESUR forum 29.06.2023
- Ukraine repatriates five more seriously wounded Russian POWs 10.04.2023
- Rada intends to include history of Ukraine, foreign language in final certification for general secondary education 10.04.2023
- Rada terminates protocol on joint anti-terrorist measures in CIS territories for Ukraine 10.04.2023
- 100 Ukrainians, incl defenders of Mariupol, returned according to swap procedure – Yermak 10.04.2023
Court postpones hearing of PrivatBank's appeal against decision to terminate NFP $30 mln loan obligations
KYIV. Oct 5 (Interfax-Ukraine) – The Supreme Court has postponed consideration of the cassation appeal of PrivatBank (Kyiv) against the decisions of the courts of lower instances, which recognized as terminated the obligations of Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant JSC (NFP, Dnipropetrovsk region) under one of the loan agreements signed with the bank, an Interfax-Ukraine correspondent said on Tuesday.
According to the decision of the judges, the session was postponed until October 19, 2021.
The reason for the interruption in the consideration of the case was the cassation appeal received by the court from the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
As the legal representative of PrivatBank Andriy Pozhydaev told Interfax-Ukraine, the amount of the dispute is $30 million. According to him, the decision on this case will be final.
In addition, representatives of the NFP, referring to the law on banks and banking secrecy, filed a motion to hold the court session behind closed doors and to restrict access to persons who were not participants in the trial. It was rejected by the court.
As reported, on January 22, 2021, the economic court recognized all obligations of the NFP as terminated.
PrivatBank filed a lawsuit with the Delaware Court of Chancery, in which it points to the violation of the NFP of its contractual obligations under the loan agreement, including the use of credit funds for purposes that contradict the conditions of issuance, that is, not to finance the current activities of the enterprise.
In addition, in the claim in the United States, according to the text of the court ruling, it is argued that NFP was involved in money laundering and illegal redirection of loans, which, in particular, provided for the repayment of debt under a loan agreement at the expense of funds under other loan agreements.
NFP, in turn, said that since any obligations between it and PrivatBank, stipulated by the loan agreement, were terminated by execution, the bank has no grounds for not recognizing the plaintiff’s right to terminate the obligation.
PrivatBank said that its appeal with the U.S. court did not lead to non-recognition, violation or challenge of the rights of NFP and, accordingly, the latter had no prerequisites and grounds for filing a statement of claim for recognizing obligations under the loan agreement terminated. However, the economic court of Kyiv took the side the plaintiff.
