“ProCredit Bank” failed in three court cases against its client, is this a case of harassment and bullying?
Thursday, April 24
The action brought by London House Georgia Ltd in 2010 against ProCredit Bank was partly accepted by the court. At the same time, the court charged ProCredit Bank with deliberate impairment which obstructed London House Georgia Ltd from receiving up to half a million dollars of income from an international investor. In addition to the sustained loss, the court decision clearly raised the question of bona fides. In particular, the court placed special emphasis on the fact that the respondent (ProCredit Bank) “should be more attentive and honest to its clients on the assumption of its status and activities”, especially “under the circumstances when the bank had to foresee that the matter had concerned a business subject, a sufficiently successful long-time client”.
Later, in compliance with the court decision (the Supreme Court Judgement, case N as-105-1082-2022), the respondent, ProCredit Bank, was obliged to transfer the lost amount to London House Georgia Ltd's company account under the supervision of the Tbilisi Enforcement Bureau. In the aforementioned case, London House Georgia Ltd demanded compensation of the incurred losses by ProCredit Bank, our claim was unfortunately only met in part due to the court practice at the time. As a result of the courts ruling ProCredit Bank subsequently demanded from London House Georgia Ltd the sum of Lari 32,124 as part of lawyers’ fees paid by the bank, which was, in its opinion, a proportional amount of the unsatisfied part of our previous claim for which the bank had paid Lari 41617.78 to hire a very expensive firm of attorneys. (Our second claim, case N 2/1489-09, against ProCredit Bank was won and fully met by the court. Therefore, it seems that the “private adviser” did not succumb to temptation and insist on us fully or partly covering costs (fees) sustained paying another expensive firm of attorneys).
It is worth mentioning that this second court case revolved around the definition of an indefinite pronoun which the “transparent” ProCredit Bank had “found” in its loan agreement with London House Georgia Ltd. The “private adviser” was ignorant of the Georgian language and tried to use this false “grammatical” basis to force us not to claim the loss we had borne from the cancelled agreement with an international investor due to the bank’s error.
In the third and final (so far) case against ProCredit Bank, the Supreme Court of Georgia did not accept ProCredit Bank’s claim regarding compensating it the part of the Lawyers’ fees and, on the contrary, obliged Procredit Bank to pay compensation to London House Georgia Ltd.
We would like to remind the public that this has been the third court case we have won against ProCredit Bank. Looking at the number of court cases lost to a client (and considering intentional breaches of agreements and damaging its own client), the “private adviser” will no doubt remain the undisputable leader of the Georgian banking sector for a long time.
We unfortunately lack statistical data on Nicaragua, People’s Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique and Honduras markets where a bank unknown in Western Europe, can, according to its own statement, operate successfully.
It is vitally important that banks work closely to support its commercial clients and that they work in partnership to the benefit of both. The relationship between Bank and Client needs to be clear and truly transparent and both will prosper.
It appears that during the whole conflict period with ProCredit Bank it was unfairly growing rich on the account of up to $ 1.6 million paid by London House Georgia Ltd to service its high-interest rate loan. The ProCredit Bank according to persistent rumors, was not ashamed of offering interested parties low-interest loans and job vacancies in the bank. London House Georgia Ltd has noted that during the court case brought by us against the bank, Ms. Maka Nadirashvili, an assistant of judge Shorena Jankhoteli, was suddenly offered a position of a high-paid lawyer in the bank. Later, as a representative of the bank, she appeared against London House Georgia Ltd in court. It is probably a detail and a pure coincidence, because we firmly believe that a West-European type bank cannot have anything in common with a direct or indirect bribery or corruption.
We are also sure that even during the disinformation dissemination against its client by means of different news media in December 30, 2010, the “private adviser” did not have malicious intent to pompously declare that it appeared that its client had breached its liabilities to the bank and the latter had the right to realize its property. Later, the court decided that the client had not breached any liabilities (moreover, it had been considered as an exemplary payer repaying all its debts in advance) whereas the bank was accused of violating the terms of the loan agreement, causing damage to the client and was obliged to pay compensation to the client. Unfortunately, due to the numerous false allegations against London House Georgia Ltd it has caused uncompensated damage affecting the company’s reputation. It is worth noticing that the “private adviser” disseminated the aforementioned false and slanderous accusations when the Tbilisi City Court pronounced judgment against the bank in December, 2010. Having found itself in an awkward situation, the bank still tries to obliterate the trace of disinformation it disseminated in different media in December 30, 2010 and disappearance of own statement from archive. Apparently, it has been successful so far, since other than one or two exceptions the aforementioned bank statement cannot be traced by Google at many sites, though one can find permanent advertisements of ProCredit Bank at the mentioned sites. We believe that ProCredit Bank pays sizable sum to the internet publishers who have already deleted all traces of the false bank statements. It is also a detail. The rest will be made public when we bring in an action against ProCredit Bank new lawsuits and the court gives judgment on it. Correspondingly, having won three court cases we allow ourselves to disagree with a German expression: “Aller guten Dinge sind drei.”, i.e. “All good things come in threes”.
Having lost three court cases against its own client, the “reshuffled” management of ProCredit Bank apart from its “private adviser”, “transparency”, “reliability” and “invincibility” in costly campaigns should also look after the qualification and competence of its own staff or of those hired from outside in order to not waste money. This is especially important when the client itself doesn’t use lawyer services in court cases against the bank. Thus, having lost the third court case against us, lawyers of ProCredit Bank should not worry as the bank will not be obliged to pay off the lawyer’s costs (fees) to us.
We would also like to remind ProCredit Bank, operating by money, the bank that has exhausted completely its own lobbying, financial, linguistic and intellectual potential fighting against us and losing three court cases, the following English expression: “Zeal without knowledge is a runaway horse”.
Following the court’s judgment, the amount paid to London House Georgia Ltd. has been donated to charity. It has been distributed amongst Makhachashvili, Korashvili and Mekarishvili homeless families from the conflict zone village of Dvani.
”Grow stronger with a strong bank!” Without us, I mean, of course…
P.S. In case ProCredit Bank conceives a wish to make a retaliatory statement, we would insistently recommend it not to dodge the issue, as it so often has done. The first and especially the second case were not been commented on due to the ignorance of the “private adviser” about the Georgian language …
London House Georgia Ltd
(R)