Will ARMA protect Oschadbank's interests? The competition for managing Gulliver raises doubts about the agency's financial accountability.

The Asset Recovery and Management Agency (ARMA), while announcing a competition to select a manager for the capital's shopping and entertainment center "Gulliver," failed to consider the credit obligations to state banks, including "Oschadbank," thereby jeopardizing the financial interests of the state. Experts suggest that this move may indicate corrupt motives and an attempt to cater to the interests of a future manager, even at the potential cost to state banks, reports UNN.

Details

ARMA has announced a competition to select a manager for the "Gulliver" shopping and entertainment center. The head of the agency, Elena Duma, proudly stated that she approached the selection of a manager for this high-profile asset with the utmost seriousness and even established a maximum of four criteria for candidates. Among the conditions that participants must fulfill are a property worth at least 100 million hryvnias, a professional team, documented experience in managing similar facilities, and confirmed financial solvency.

The building of the "Gulliver" shopping center is collateral for a mortgage loan from state banks, including "Oschadbank." However, none of the criteria set forth by ARMA mention the necessity to repay the loan.

Economist Andrey Novak emphasized in a comment for UNN that the lack of consideration for the interests of the state bank raises doubts about the objectivity of the competition. In his opinion, this approach creates conditions for potential corruption, as a "prearranged manager" could benefit.

“The interests of 'Oschadbank,' which financed the 'Gulliver' shopping center, must have been taken into account. The fact that they were not considered raises suspicions of intentional corrupt actions in favor of a new future manager, who is likely already agreed upon, and this would directly cause losses to the state bank. If this happens, in addition to direct losses, it will set a very negative precedent for similar situations, an example that ARMA can make decisions that harm the state or the owner,” noted the economist.

In his view, ARMA should have prioritized the protection of creditors, including "Oschadbank," but for some reason, the agency is doing the opposite, causing it harm.

At "Oschadbank," there is a firm stance regarding the appointment of a new manager for "Gulliver" who will not service the loan.

“We will seek to recover against the asset. It's ridiculous; they (ARMA - ed.) understood the position of state banks from day one, yet they behave as if the positions of state banks do not exist. Why should we turn to someone? Why didn't they take this into account? They should have considered the position of state banks when drafting the documentation; why didn't they specify that? Why should we chase ARMA and beg for something? We will seek recovery against the asset, that's all,” stated in a comment to UNN Arsen Milyutin, Deputy Chairman of the Board of "Oschadbank," responsible for NPL management.

In the state bank, they openly do not understand why, instead of loan repayments, "Gulliver's" earnings will be handed over to a "mysterious manager."

Economic expert Alexander Okhrimenko suggests that ARMA intentionally did not include credit obligations in the requirements for the manager.

“On one hand, there is indeed a problem that 'Oschadbank' may lose this mortgage loan, meaning no one will repay it. On the other hand, today it is unrealistic to find a manager who would agree to take on 'Gulliver' with such debts. ARMA simply... understands that if they consider 'Oschadbank's' debts, the agency won't be able to give 'Gulliver' to anyone at all,” he believes.

ARMA's actions in announcing a competition for the manager of the "Gulliver" shopping center without considering credit obligations raise concerns. Ignoring the interests of state financial institutions creates a risk of losses for the state and could impact the situation in the banking system. This ARMA decision calls into question the agency's ability to manage assets effectively without harming state interests.

Additionally

As is known, the building of the shopping center serves as collateral for a mortgage loan with "Oschadbank" and "Ukreximbank." The owner of "Gulliver" is the company "TRI O," which is currently repaying debts to the banks. If the asset is handed over to a new manager, the company will lose its only source of income and will be unable to service the loan, leaving the state bank without repayments on its debt obligations.

At "Oschadbank," even before ARMA announced the competition, they noted that once "Gulliver" is handed over to a new manager, all loan repayments will cease, and it will remain unpaid, which harms the interests of the state bank.

The losses for "Oschadbank" due to the cessation of loan repayments could exceed 20 billion hryvnias.