Emitents | Reverta, AS (iepriekšējais nosaukums - Parex banka, AS) (097900BHBR0000064855) |
Veids | Būtiski notikumi |
Valoda | EN |
Statuss | Publicēts |
Versija | |
Datums | 2016-09-20 10:34:15 |
Versijas komentārs | |
Teksts |
Joint-stock company Reverta has appealed in cassation instance
to annul the judgement of the Supreme Court of 14 June 2016 by
which the claim of Rems Kargins, the son of the former shareholder
of Parex Bank Valerijs Kargins, was satisfied and a payment of more
than 15 million euros was enforced upon Reverta. The latter has
also asked for the intervention of the European Commission. Having acquainted himself with the full judgement of the Supreme
Court, the representative of Reverta, attorney at law Agris Bitāns
says: “The judgement shows that the court not only has not examined
most of the arguments submitted by Reverta but has not mentioned
them either. For example, the court has not taken into account the
significant amendments to the Law on Control of Aid for Commercial
Activity or the Constitutional Court judgement which clearly states
that 15 million euros claimed by R.Kargins is a subordinated
liability and thus can be fulfilled only after a full repayment of
the state aid.” If the judgement remains in force as is, more than 15 million
euros from funds recovered by Reverta will be paid to the family of
the former shareholder of Parex banka instead of being deposited
into the state budget. Seeing that such payment would appear to
result in a misuse of state aid, Reverta has informed the European
Commission of the judgement. It is expected that the EC will
recognise the 15 million euro payment to be a blatant violation of
the state aid which might result in serious sanctions against
Latvia. It should be reminded that since the restructuring of Parex Bank
and until the moment the aforementioned amendments of law were
passed Reverta has paid 18.6 million euros of interest on
subordinated loans. These payments were mostly made to persons
associated with the former Parex Bank and their family
members. Already the abbreviated judgement was a cause of astonishment to
the attorney at law Agris Bitāns because the amendments to Law on
Control of Aid for Commercial Activity that came into effect on 1
July 2014 forbade any payments to the holders of subordinated
obligations before a full repayment of the state aid. In addition
to this, A.Bitāns pointed out to another significant condition –
two of the judges reviewing the case of R.Kargins were also among
those adjudicating and fully dismissing an identical claim by
Ņ.Kondratjeva. |
Pielikumi |
|