finbalance.com.ua
Kyiv's District Administrative Court on May 15, on the suit by Ecosipan company, the sole owner of the Mykhailivsky Bank, canceled the decision of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) on the insolvency of the Mykhailivsky Bank, the decision of the Deposit Guarantee Fund to introduce an interim administration in the financial institution, and their joint decision to liquidate it, according to FinClub.
The court stated that the transfer of UAH 1.507 billion from the account of Investment and Settlement Center to the accounts of individuals, although increasing the liabilities of the Deposit Guarantee Fund, was not in fact a "banking operation", because Mykhailivsky Bank was not a party to the loan agreements, only executing the client orders, FinClub reports.
Read alsoFormer head of Mykhaylivsky Bank flees home confinement – mediaGiven this, the court decided that Mykhailivsky Bank had not conducted transactions, as a result of which its obligations to individuals within the guaranteed amount increased due to the reduction of liabilities to legal entities. So, there were no reasons for insolvency, the court stated.
At the same time, the court refused to "oblige the NBU to take all necessary steps to restore the functioning of the Mykhailivsky Bank as a financial institution."
The National Bank is preparing an appeal. "The National Bank does not agree with the decision of Kyiv's District Administrative Court, which on May 15, 2017, issued a resolution partially satisfying the lawsuit lodged by Ecosipan and canceling the decision of the NBU to classify Mykhailivsky Bank as insolvent and liquidate it, as well as both decisions of the Deposit Guarantee Fund," the NBU said.
Read alsoUkraine's National Bank may lose some $82 mln due to lawsuitsAs UNIAN reported earlier, the NBU on May 23, 2016 declared Mykhailivsky bank insolvent due to the bank's suspicious transactions with deposits of individuals.
In addition, on the eve of the introduction of the interim administration, Mykhailivsky Bank concluded factoring contracts with financial companies Fagor and Pleyada, under which it ceded rights of its loan requirements. Subsequently, the Deposit Guarantee Fund declared these contracts null and void. Since then, the companies have been trying to defend their interests in court.