The Supreme Court confirmed the impossibility of returning the state-owned "PrivatBank" to its former owners. The ruling is final and not subject to appeal.
This information was published by the National Bank of Ukraine. They noted that the decision was made on February 26. According to it, the court:
Rejected the complaint of the former co-owner of "PrivatBank," Ihor Kolomoiskyi. Upheld the decision of the appellate court, which included the closure of proceedings in the case regarding the challenge of state authorities’ decisions to withdraw "PrivatBank" from the market with the participation of the state.Thus, it was emphasized, the court finally established that the nationalization of PrivatBank is lawful.
Previous Developments
Previously, it became known that Kolomoiskyi had appealed to the Constitutional Court to declare certain provisions of Law No. 590-IX unconstitutional. This law provides for the termination of court proceedings on specific claims in the field of banking regulation.
In his complaint, the businessman asked to declare these provisions unconstitutional, as he believed that they contradicted several articles of the Constitution. However, according to representatives of "PrivatBank," Kolomoiskyi attempted to challenge the decisions of all state bodies involved in the nationalization of the institution.
Nationalization of "PrivatBank"
On December 18, 2016, the National Bank decided to recognize "PrivatBank" as insolvent and its subsequent withdrawal from the market with state participation. Following this, it approached the government with a proposal to acquire ownership of the bank’s shares.
This decision was based on the reduction of regulatory capital to a negative value. The capital shortfall of "PrivatBank" was confirmed, among other things, by an independent international auditing company. The bank’s shareholders did not fulfill their commitments to its financial recovery.
On the same day, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine decided on the state’s entry into the capital of "PrivatBank." However, the former owners disagreed with the decision and initiated lengthy legal proceedings, hoping to regain the bank.