AB "Rokiskio suris", Pramones str.3, Rokiskis, Lithuania, 2017-06-06 15:52 CEST (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- On 2 June 2017, Panevėžys Regional Court has dismissed all the claims of East Capital (LUX) Baltic Fund against AB Rokiškio sūris CEO Antanas Trumpa.
East Capital (LUX) Baltic Fund submitted a claim against Antanas Trumpa for compensation of potential damages to AB Rokiškio sūris in the amount of EUR 10.524 million. East Capital (LUX) Baltic Fund specified in its claim statement that Antanas Trumpa was liable for granting loans by AB Rokiškio sūris in breach of the provision of the Law on Companies of the Republic of Lithuania prohibiting the provision of financial assistance, and for conclusion of contracts that are against the interests of AB Rokiškio sūris.
In its judgement Panevėžys Regional Court indicated that the claim’s data allows to state that Antanas Trumpa as a manager of AB Rokiškio sūris had performed in breach with the Law on Public Limited Liability Companies, i. e. provided the Company’s financial support against the law (Law on Public Limited Liability Companies Article 44 Part 10, valid supplements of Law on Public Limited Liability Companies Article 452 Part 4). However, by dismissing the claim of East Capital (LUX) Baltic Fund, the Court held that the actions of Antanas Trumpa did not constitute any damage against the Company or its shareholders.
The Court established that East Capital (LUX) Baltic Fund missed the prescription period to file the claim, which, in the claims for the compensation of damages, is 3 years and starts on the date when the right to file the claim has arisen. In the opinion of the Court, East Capital (LUX) Baltic Fund, as a professional investor that became a shareholder of Rokiškio sūris in 2003, had to be interested in the activities of the Company, its loans and other information which was publicly available. However, as stated by the Court, the claimant started addressing its enquiries to Rokiškio sūris about the financing of UAB Pieno pramonės investicijų valdymas (PPIV) only in 2013, although it was always actively present in all the meetings of the shareholders of the Company as well as meetings with the representatives of the Company. The claimant did not substantiate why it missed the prescription period and the Court therefore stated that there was no ground to restore the missed period of prescription.
The judgment of Panevėžys Regional Court does not have the force of res iudicata. The parties of the case may within 30 days from the date of the judgment, file an appeal with the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Lithuania.
Dalius Trumpa Board Chairman +370 458 55200
