Thursday, November 22, 2018

Kyiv's court refuses to return Akhmetov's Ukrtelecom to state ownership


The State Property Fund accuses the buyer of the failure to fulfill its investment obligations estimated at US$450 million.

Kyiv's Economic Court has refused to satisfy the lawsuit lodged by the State Property Fund (SPF) against Ukrainian businessman Rinat Akhmetov's ESU company for termination of the contract for the sale of a 92.79% stake in Ukraine's telecoms giant Ukrtelecom and the recovery of US$81.9 million in penalty for late payment of the investment obligation.

"Guided by Articles Nos. 73-80, 86, 129, 180, 233, 236, 237, 238, 240, 241 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine, the Kyiv Economic Court decided not to satisfy the primary claim. The counterclaim should not be satisfied," a court ruling dated November 7, 2018, says. As UNIAN reported earlier, ESU LLC (owned by the Austrian company EPIC, now Raga Establishment) in 2011 bought Ukrtelecom from the state, having paid UAH 10.57 billion for the 92.79% stake. In 2013, Akhmetov's System Capital Management (SCM) holding bought the telecoms operator's shares. In May 2017, the SPF appealed against ESU in court, demanding the cancelation of the sale of Ukrtelecom's shares in connection with the buyer's failure to fulfill investment obligations estimated at US$450 million. On October 19, 2017, Kyiv's economic court considered a lawsuit lodged by the State Property Fund and revoked the contract concluded in March 2011 following a privatization tender to sell Ukrtelecom shares to ESU, thus returning Ukrtelecom to state ownership. 

On December 12, 2017, the Court of Appeals refused to satisfy ESU's lawsuit challenging the decision by a court of previous instance, according to which Ukrtelecom was to be returned to state ownership. In July 2018, the Supreme Court of Ukraine considered an appeal by Ukrainian businessman Rinat Akhmetov's ESU company against the court rulings terminating a deal to privatize 92.8% of shares of Ukraine's telecoms giant Ukrtelecom and returned the case for retrial by a court of first instance.



No comments:

Post a Comment