Poroshenko congratulates PrivatBank on court victory over Kolomoisky in London, thanks former NBU Governor Hontareva

The leader of the European Solidarity party, Petro Poroshenko, who served as President of Ukraine during the events in case, called the decision of the London court in favor of the nationalized PrivatBank against its former owners, Ihor Kolomoisky and Hennadiy Boholiubov, a historic verdict against corruption schemes, greed and impunity.

"When we did this in 2016, we saved the financial system of Ukraine. We did not allow the fraudsters to drag the entire national economy down with them... Today, the London court confirmed we were right," the European Solidarity said on its website citing Poroshenko.

He expressed special gratitude to the then-Governor of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU), Valeria Hontareva, and the entire team that worked on the case and was able to "protect depositors' funds, prevent the hryvnia from collapsing, and maintain stability."

Poroshenko hopes that Ukraine and Ukrainians will be returned nearly $5 billion that the government spent on the bank's capitalization following its nationalization.

"This verdict is not only about the past. It is a signal for the future. No one who believes themselves above the law and justice will escape accountability," the president of Ukraine in 2014-2019 also said.

The court's decision, which was announced and published on Wednesday, mentions Poroshenko twice. The first time was on the issue of the National Bank and the government engaging professional consultants, including the Hogan Lovells law firm, which assisted the bank in the lawsuit. As the judge noted, citing statements from individual defendants, Chris Hardman of Hogan Lovells attended meetings at the Presidential Administration in September 2015, November 2015, and February 2016, some of which were attended by Poroshenko, to discuss the assistance that the law firm could provide to the NBU.

The second mention dates back to around July 2016, when Poroshenko, Hontareva and Kateryna Rozhkova, the NBU first deputy governor, met with Kolomoisky. Prior to this, the former owners of PrivatBank had transferred assets to him, valuing them at UAH 31.4 billion, while the National Bank's valuation was UAH 9.7 billion, and Rozhkova informed Kolomoisky that the NBU was serious about this difference and that it threatened cooperation with the IMF.

"It was only after a meeting with the then President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, which was attended by Mr Kolomoisky, Ms Gontareva and Ms Rozhkova, that the situation changed. At that meeting, Ms Rozhkova explained to the President and Mr Kolomoisky that a substantial portion of the assets that were taken onto the Bank's balance sheet as part of the process of implementing the Restructuring Plan did not have sufficient value," the court's decision reads.

According to its text, Kolomoisky stated that the NBU was behaving unreasonably, but there is evidence that the president’s reaction was to appeal to Mr. Kolomoisky to reconsider his position.

As the judge concluded, it appears that this response led to a letter from Kolomoisky to the NBU of July 10, 2016, entitled "Obligation on a Personal Guarantee," in which the former owner acknowledged that the bank still had to take measures stipulated by the Restructuring Plan.

According to the decision, this is a personal guarantee that from October 2016, the repayment of debts of borrowers associated with the bank will begin, and by the end of August 2016, the bank will receive on its balance sheet a sufficient number of assets specified in the appendix, at a market price previously agreed with the NBU, to eliminate the capital deficit. The appendix stated that the total value of the assets is UAH 76.66 billion.

As reported, PrivatBank, nationalized in December 2016, filed a lawsuit in the High Court of London against the former owners Kolomoisky and Boholiubov, as well as six British companies allegedly associated with them, and obtained a court order for the worldwide seizure of their assets in the amount of more than $2.5 billion.

In turn, the defense of Kolomoisky and Boholiubov rejected the accusations and argued that the bank failed to identify specific actions of the former owners that were illegal under Ukrainian law or that directly led to the bank's losses.