They are attempting to challenge the 1.1 billion debt in court
A new legal dispute has erupted over more than one billion hryvnias in debt owed to Ukrgasbank, in which the company Euroenergotrade is attempting to challenge a pledge agreement after the bank has already received the funds. The situation appears to be an attempt to reopen a closed financial matter through legal channels.
Euroenergotrade has filed a petition with the Kyiv Commercial Court seeking to invalidate the pledge agreement under which the state-owned Ukrgasbank has already collected over 1.14 billion hryvnias in debt.
As noted, as early as May 14, the bank officially announced the repayment of the problematic debt at the expense of the property guarantor, meaning it effectively recovered funds that had remained problematic for years. However, as early as May 19, the debtor filed a lawsuit in which “Ukrgasbank” itself is one of the defendants, attempting to challenge the validity of the pledge agreement signed back in 2020.
Economist and former chairman of the board of one of the commercial banks, Boris Kushniruk, notes in his blog that the company officially explains the lawsuit with “incorrect calculations of amounts,” inflation, and other financial arguments, but the real goal may be different. “A coincidence? I don’t think so. As long as the debt wasn’t being repaid for years, everyone was fine with it. But as soon as the state bank actually received over a billion hryvnias, the debtor ‘woke up’ and started coming up with new ways to avoid responsibility,” Kushniruk writes.
According to him, such attempts to challenge loan obligations to state-owned banks in Ukraine are not isolated, as there has long been a practice of delaying payments and engaging in legal maneuvers involving state funds. “State funds were perceived as, in a sense, ‘nobody’s property.’ Money could go unpaid for years while ‘resolving issues,’ extending deadlines, negotiating, declaring legal entities bankrupt, and launching media campaigns,” the expert notes.
He adds that the current situation will serve as a test for the judicial system and the state bank’s ability to legally defend funds that have already been repaid, despite new lawsuits filed by the debtor.
