A poet once appealed to his readers to morally emulate their ideological idols. In today’s Ukraine, the word “Kryvorizhstal” is the talk of the town. The record-setting proceeds from the sale of the country’s largest steel mill have had a dramatic psychological effect on Ukrainians. It looks like Ukraine now has ample grounds to consider itself a far richer country than it did before Oct. 24. At the same time, perhaps because of euphoria, some legal details have been clarified, which show that the process of privatization in our country was far from flawless from the juridical standpoint.
For example, during a recent television appearance Oleksandr Bondar, the deputy head of the State Property Fund, inadvertently confirmed the position of lawyers with the Prydniprovya firm, who had repeatedly insisted that there were no legal grounds at all for the reprivatization of the Nikopol Ferroalloys Plant (NFZ). According to Bondar, the violations that led the courts to order the re-nationalization of the NFZ were not significant. For instance, the courts consider the fact that fewer than 75 days (as envisaged by the Privatization Program) elapsed between the announcement and the sale a “serious violation.” But Bondar would not have included this violation in the statement of claim concerning the nationalization of Kryvorizhstal. Actually, the Prydniprovya lawyers also cite this as proof that the decision to reprivatize NFZ was exclusively political and without legal grounds. Below we offer comments that are not all that contradictory.
Oleksiy REZNYKOV, member of the law firm Prydniprovya:
“As for the infractions, I’d just like to note that the grounds on which the Ukrainian courts ruled that Kryvorizhstal was privatized in contravention of the law remain in the conditions of the auction now designated for Oct. 24. The Ukrainian courts determined that there were fewer than 75 days between the announcement and the sale. But I remind everyone that the announcement was made on Aug. 10 and the sale is taking place on Oct. 24. If you count the days, you get 74, which is already a violation. In addition, the respected [head of the State Property Fund] Valentyna Semeniuk was the plaintiff and said that citizens’ rights were violated during the sale of this package; that 5 percent of the 93.2 percent of shares should have been sold to the public. This was not done at this auction, either.”
Oleksandr BONDAR:
“I had nothing to do with the sale the first time, and the second time I had nothing to do with the preparations for the sale because I have different duties in the State Property Fund. But I made a special point of studying the plaintiffs’ suits and court rulings about the first sale of Kryvorizhstal. I can say that out of the five grounds that paved the way for reverting Kryvorizhstal to state ownership, I would not have submitted three (including the violation of the 75-day deadline — Ed.). Two of them are valid.”
The deputy head of the State Property Fund emphasized that this is his personal opinion. But why would it not have been taken into account when the courts were issuing their rulings about the NFZ? Or do we apply different laws to different enterprises?
