ARMA vs. open competition: Is the selection process for the manager of the "Gulliver" shopping center truly transparent?

The establishment of very "narrow" criteria for potential managers of seized assets, as seen in the case of the competition for managing the "Gulliver" shopping mall, is atypical for the Asset Recovery and Management Agency (ARMA). Despite ARMA's claims of transparency, experts note that the requirements for participants are so stringent that they could limit competition and raise doubts about the process's transparency, reports UNN.

Details

On October 30, ARMA announced a competition to select a manager for the "Gulliver" shopping mall. The head of the agency, Elena Duma, proudly stated that she took a very strict approach to selecting a manager for this high-profile asset and even established the maximum possible four criteria for candidates. Among the conditions that participants must meet are: an asset base with a total value of at least 100 million hryvnias, a professional team, proven experience in managing similar facilities, and confirmed financial viability.

According to experts, such requirements could significantly narrow the pool of potential participants.

"The stricter the requirements for any competitive procedures, the fewer individuals will be able to participate... these four requirements are already quite high. One must question how justified such criteria are. I believe that in certain areas, they could be reduced to allow a broader range of individuals to participate in the selection," noted lawyer Oleg Shram in an exclusive comment to UNN.

Additionally, former chairman of the Public Council at ARMA Igor Chobitko emphasized that the rigidity of the criteria may not be coincidental and could indicate bias in organizing the competition.

"This likely resembles a situation where there is a question of redistributing business among competitors, and such competitions are conducted under this scheme. If there were no such asset criteria, any entrepreneur with experience could exercise their right to manage such a complex," the expert believes.

Experts suggest that the competition may have been organized with certain private interests in mind. Although there is currently no direct evidence of corruption, the very structure of the requirements for participants raises suspicions. Therefore, such situations should be under close scrutiny by anti-corruption agencies. In particular, the NABU should investigate whether there were abuses in the process of forming the competition conditions.

"ARMA is a criminal organization of power. I am convinced that such competitions are designed with conditions to select a specific and already known individual as the manager. The rules are tailored specifically for this person... no one in the ARMA leadership operates blindly. Everything is done in advance, understanding the consequences of their actions," argues security expert Sergiy Shabovta.

Therefore, despite the statements by ARMA chair Elena Duma regarding a strict approach to selection, experts still call for greater transparency and a balanced approach that would allow for a broader range of potential participants and reduce the risks of bias.

Additionally

Moreover, in announcing the competition, the Asset Recovery and Management Agency did not take into account that the "Gulliver" shopping mall building is collateral for a mortgage loan in state banks, including "Oschadbank." However, among the criteria set by ARMA, there is no mention of the need to pay off the loan.

Oschadbank has repeatedly stated that the decision to transfer "Gulliver" to ARMA harms the interests of the state bank, as it would relieve the owner company of its loan payments for the capital complex. The lost income for "Oschadbank" due to the cessation of loan payments could exceed 20 billion hryvnias.

Following the announcement of the competition, Oschadbank's Deputy Chairman of the Board responsible for NPL management, Arsen Milyutin, commented to UNN stating that the state bank plans to reclaim the "Gulliver" shopping mall building for its benefit if ARMA transfers it for management. He expressed outrage that instead of loan payments to state banks, "Gulliver's" earnings would go to an "unknown manager."

Only after this, and under public pressure, did ARMA representatives agree to meet with Oschadbank's Deputy Chairman of the Board responsible for NPL management, Arsen Milyutin, to discuss management issues concerning the seized asset that affect the State Bank's interests regarding debt repayment. As expected, no consensus was reached during the meeting, and the parties agreed to "continue interaction." Milyutin reported that during the meeting, ARMA promised to "thoroughly review" the relevant regulatory acts to see if it was possible to include payments to creditor banks in management expenses. However, it should be noted that ARMA's rhetoric did not significantly change after this meeting—they continue to justify that the current legislation does not allow the agency to become a creditor or debtor in the obligations of the asset owner.