Suspended Central Bank predpravleniya Sevastopol marine Bank challenged its reorganization. In the Russian practice it is pretty rare, the last time the reorganization was challenged — unsuccessfully — the representatives of the former top management of PSB in 2018. This time the odds are too small, sure lawyers.May 18, in the arbitration court of Moscow was considered on the merits the claim to Bank of Russia challenging the introduction of temporary administration from the Bank of the Sevastopol. Third parties in the lawsuit stated RNCB, the insulating Bank and Agency on insurance of contributions (ASV). The lawsuit was filed by suspended the interim administration of the Central Bank ex-CEO of Bank Tatyana Gerasimova. “At the time of introduction of temporary administration of the plan the participation of the DIA in the prevention of bankruptcy of absent,— said Mrs. Gerasimova.— While in the order that was presented to the Central Bank, the sole basis of introduction of temporary administration is directly the presence of this participation plan. The plan is not available to me or the Board of Directors or the shareholders, at the meeting he was not charged”. At the meeting the decision on the claim was not accepted, the next meeting is scheduled for June 24.Sevastopol marine Bank prior to may 2014 worked under Ukrainian license. Five months later, after the accession of Sevastopol to Russia received a Russian license. On 29 January, the Central Bank made the decision on its reorganization with the participation of ACB and MCB.In the Russian practice such cases are rare. The last time the reorganization was challenged by the owners of PSB in 2018, but the court did not stand in their way. However, according to Tatiana Gerasimova, now there are all bases. “On January 28, the day before the decision on reorganization, the Central Bank put the requirement to form reserves under “Ukrainian”, the portfolio of loans in full in up to 12 noon on January 29, she said. The regulator is required to dosdat reserves in the amount of 603,5 million rubles (it is more the amount of own funds of the Bank on January 1, 2020, according to “Interfax”, they amounted to 456.9 million rubles— Kommersant), but on January 29 at 9:55 went to the Bank a temporary administration.”The problem with the recovery of the Ukrainian portfolio has no solution, says Ms. Gerasimova: the implementation of activities on the territory of Ukraine impossible. But, according to her, the Bank was liquidity, in risk-free Central Bank credits on an ongoing basis is the resources of over 1.2 billion roubles, the obligations were fulfilled in time. The regulator has proposed options for self-resolution of problems, says Ms. Gerasimova. The first — the transfer of distressed Ukrainian assets in transit accounts not involved in the calculation of normative indicators, the second — the replacement of Ukrainian portfolio other assets (e.g. real estate) with the aim of further implementation. But Of the Central Bank, these options do not suit, and then the Bank has developed a plan of self-improvement in 2020-2025 years, allowing profits to solve problems. He was sent to the controller, but the response has not been received, concluded the ex-head of the Bank. The Central Bank and ASV had not responded to the request to “Kommersant”, MCB declined to comment.According to lawyers, despite all the arguments, odds of winning in court the Bank is small. “To refute the findings of the Central Bank is extremely difficult,— says the managing partner of the law Bureau “Paul Khlystov and partners” Pavel Hlystov.— In fact, the only way to put them into question is the judicial examination”. In practice, the arbitration courts overturned decisions of the Central Bank on reorganization in exceptional cases, confirmed by the Advisor of the AB “Egorov, Puginsky, Afanasiev and partners” Denis Golubev. “No one except the Bank of Russia, is unable to assess the financial position of the Bank and the Foundation of rehabilitation is formulated broadly — “there are signs of financial instability”, which is difficult to prove the groundlessness of the decision,” he explains.Olga Cherenkova