{"id":7198,"date":"2025-03-23T09:22:45","date_gmt":"2025-03-23T07:22:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-910-17632-19-dated-18-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-23T09:22:45","modified_gmt":"2025-03-23T07:22:45","slug":"case-no-910-17632-19-dated-18-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-910-17632-19-dated-18-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 910\/17632\/19 dated 18\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of Agreements on the Acquisition of PrivatBank Shares, Concluded during the Bank&#8217;s Market Exit Procedure in December 2016.<\/p>\n<p>Main Court Arguments:<br \/>\n1. The court established that the plaintiff&#8217;s chosen method of protection (invalidation of agreements) is ineffective, as it cannot restore the rights of the former shareholder.<br \/>\n2. The court referred to the European &#8220;bail-in&#8221; practice, which provides for the conversion of an insolvent bank&#8217;s debts into shares with the aim of its rescue.<br \/>\n3. Legislation prohibits the recovery of shares from the state-investor and provides for the only method of protection &#8211; monetary compensation.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Terminate the proceedings in the case, as the claim cannot be satisfied on its merits.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125946807\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of Agreements on the Acquisition of PrivatBank Shares, Concluded during the Bank&#8217;s Market Exit Procedure in December 2016. Main Court Arguments: 1. The court established that the plaintiff&#8217;s chosen method of protection (invalidation of agreements) is ineffective, as it cannot restore the rights of the former shareholder. 2. The court referred&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7198","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7198","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7198"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7198\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7198"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7198"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7198"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}