OREANDA-NEWS. October 09, 2009. A court hearing was held on the case brought by the World Trade Centre against Uniastrum Bank. The asset management activities of Uniastrum Bank were qualified as unlawful. But Uniastrum Bank does not agree with such a ruling and intends to take the matter upstairs, reported the press-centre of Uniastrum Bank.

According to the Discretionary Agreement made by and between the World Trade Center and Uniastrum Bank, the risk of loss occurrence is borne completely by the Trustor, and such losses are not to be refunded by the Trustee. According to the Discretionary Agreement, the Trustor “is aware of the fact that the market prices for securities and fluctuations of these prices are beyond control of the Trustee. The Trustor agrees that the depreciation of the assets resulting from fluctuations of the market prices for the securities purchased by the Trustee shall be qualified as a force majeure event and the Trustee shall not be liable for such price fluctuations”.

The management of the World Trade Centre, acting as the Trustor, were informed in full and in a timely manner of all transactions with the investment portfolio in the framework of the Discretionary Agreement. General Manager of the World Trade Centre Mr. Serov did not have any claims against efficiency of management of the WTC assets during the profitable periods. In May 2008, when the term of the Agreement with the WTC was expiring, the Uniastrum Bank experts warned the client represented by the General Manager of the negative securities market trends and proposed that the WTC not extend the agreement for another term. But the WTC management expressed their satisfaction with the results of the Uniastrum activities in the framework of the Discretionary Agreement, and without taking into consideration the bank’s advice, extended the Agreement for another term on the same conditions. Eventually, in the period of the financial crisis which brought about depreciation of the assets under the bank’s management, the WTC demanded that the bank refund their losses.

“At present only the conclusion of the ruling passed by the court has been announced with which the bank does not agree and which it intends to contest in a higher jurisdiction court. As neither party has so far received the full text of the court ruling, we cannot speak about the grounds of such a ruling yet. The bank in the capacity of the trustee acted in full compliance with the RF law and the Discretionary Agreement, and the trustee may not and is not entitled to be held responsible for objective market trends. Our standpoint remains unchanged – we acted strictly in compliance with the law and we intend to prove it. In any case, the case examination will not affect the bank’s current activities. We hope for an unbiased examination of the case by the higher instance court”, stated Renat Badakhov, Director of the Court Defense Department of Uniastrum Bank.