The DGF refuted the statement of Klymenko’s company regarding the "Ukrinbank" case

The Deposit Guarantee Fund denied the information disseminated by the chairman of the supervisory board of "Ukrinkom," Volodymyr Klymenko, claiming that the "court confirmed the legal status" of the financial institution.

This is stated in the response of the Deposit Guarantee Fund to its information request.

The statement of the financial structure indicated that "the conclusions contained in the mentioned court decision will have a significant impact on the legal and financial stability of the Public Joint Stock Company ’Ukrinkom,’ as the Supreme Court stated that PJSC ’Ukrinkom’ operates within the legal framework of Ukraine, and a legal entity named PJSC ’Ukrinbank’ does not exist, nor does any body that oversees PJSC ’Ukrinbank.’

dqxikeidqxiqzuant

The Fund’s editorial office stated that in case No. 913/266/20(826/15260/17), on which a ruling of the Supreme Court was issued on November 13, 2024, only procedural issues were considered. The Fund appealed the ruling of the Commercial Court of Luhansk Region dated 30.08.2023 on the closure of the proceedings in case No. 913/266/20(826/15260/17).

The Supreme Court did not consider the case on its merits and did not confirm the legality of registration actions taken concerning PJSC ’Ukrinbank.’ Accordingly, any statements that the court allegedly recognized the "legality" of such registration actions are manipulative and based on distortion, misrepresentation, and dissemination of false information, the press service of the Deposit Guarantee Fund stated.

Recall that on December 24, 2015, the NBU decided to "classify the Public Joint Stock Company ’Ukrinbank’ as insolvent." On December 25, 2015, the Fund introduced temporary administration in the bank after which it paid depositors of PJSC ’Ukrinbank’ 1.8 billion hryvnias.

However, in 2016 the former owners of the bank initiated several legal proceedings to challenge its market exit procedure and in July made changes to the Unified State Register that re-registered the legal entity to a new manager, with a new legal address in Sievierodonetsk, Luhansk region (currently occupied city of Siverskodonetsk) and with a changed legal status to PJSC ’Ukrinkom.’ The assets of PJSC ’Ukrinbank,’ which were to be used for creditor settlements under the legislation, were transferred under the control of PJSC ’Ukrinkom,’ resulting in the halt of creditor settlements.
The Fund contests these registration actions in court.

Later, bankruptcy of the company was initiated outside the framework of banking legislation (case No. 913/266/20), which is seemingly an attempt to evade creditor settlements by the bank.

The provisions of law and numerous court decisions (including those of the Supreme Court) clearly state that the termination of a bank’s banking activities is possible only in the manner prescribed by the laws "On Banks and Banking" and "On the Deposit Guarantee System." They also indicate that legislation does not provide for succession in the event of a bank’s liquidation.

This position is laid out in the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated December 10, 2019, in case No. 925/698/16, which became applicable in similar case considerations. This position specifically involves that:

the termination of a bank’s banking activities is possible only in the manner prescribed by the aforementioned laws
cancellation by a court or recognition as unlawful of the Fund’s decision to introduce temporary administration or to start the bank liquidation procedure does not mean automatic cessation of the bank’s management by the Fund;
transactions made by former bank managers after the beginning of the bank’s market exit procedure by the Fund are invalid;
banking legislation does not provide for succession in the event of a bank’s market exit.

These conclusions are confirmed in cases with similar subject composition (cases No.
909/578/17, No. 913/266/20, No. 910/6607/21). Moreover, the law adopted in 2020 "On Amendments to Some Legislative Acts of Ukraine to Improve Some Mechanisms of Banking Regulation" No. 590-IX specified that the procedure for the market exit of a bank cannot be halted.

This law No. 590-IX also entrusted the Fund to carry out (continue) the market exit procedures and liquidation of such banks in accordance with the "On the Deposit Guarantee System" law.

The Special Chamber of the Supreme Court has already considered a completely similar case No. 910/4475/19 regarding PJSC ’Zlatobank’ and on November 18, 2021, issued a decision stating that changing the name, organizational and legal form, reorganization, transformation of a legal entity that has bank status into a non-banking institution, its liquidation outside the procedure established by the "On Banks and Banking" and "On the Deposit Guarantee System" laws is not allowed and does not deprive it of bank status.

In view of this, the Fund and the Fund’s authorized person are taking all possible measures to ensure the full implementation of the PJSC ’Ukrinbank’ liquidation procedure in a legal manner.

Currently, the amount of creditor claims acknowledged by the bank, which remain unpaid to date, amounts to about 3 billion hryvnias, of which: about 608 million hryvnias are claims from 4th tier creditors (claims from individual depositors for amounts exceeding the guaranteed reimbursement); over 491 million hryvnias are claims from 7th tier creditors (legal entities not related to the bank).

By the way, this law allowed bringing back under the Fund’s management and resuming the liquidation procedure of a number of "zombie banks," which also challenged their market exit and were removed from the Fund’s control. Including PJSC ’Zlatobank,’ where a similar situation occurred — the decision on its recognition as insolvent was contested, blocking the liquidation procedure, as a result of which the Deposit Guarantee Fund was forced to suspend settlements with the bank’s depositors and creditors. In 2019, the shareholders renamed the bank to PJSC ’Zlato,’ changed the location of the legal entity, and attempted to start bankruptcy proceedings of the bank according to the Bankruptcy Code, which does not regulate bank bankruptcies.

However, after the adoption of law 590-IX, in February 2021, the Deposit Guarantee Fund managed to regain control over it and resume settlements with creditors.

According to the authorized person of the Fund for the liquidation of PJSC ’Ukrinbank’ and the Fund itself, law enforcement agencies conduct pre-trial investigations on a number of criminal cases. These cases investigate the circumstances of driving PJSC ’Ukrinbank’ to insolvency, illegal re-registration of real estate objects transferred by PJSC ’Ukrinbank’ to the Fund based on mortgage agreements post-issuance of a targeted loan agreement, as well as the issuance of a bank guarantee to the benefit of
a person related to the bank, as a result of which the bank suffered significant financial losses.