Raport bieżący nr 52/2021
As the Company had previously announced, the Central Bank of Hungary (MNB) started
Market Supervision Proceedings against the Company in 2020 in which it was revised
whether the relevant provisions of the governing law on market manipulation were violated
by the latest capital increase and in terms of the announcement related thereto. The Central
Bank of Hungary later decided to approve the prospectus of the launch of the shares at the
Budapest Stock Exchange issued during the capital increase and it concluded with its former
decision No: N-KE-III-227/2021 that ‘MNB did not explore any relevant circumstance given
the Market Supervision Proceedings which could significantly affect the decision of MNB to
be made upon the approval of the Prospectus prepared to launch the shares at the
regulated market, MNB decided to terminate the suspension of the Proceedings and to
continue it” (quotation from the decision).
In the executive part of decision No H-PJ-III-16/2021 of the Central Bank of Hungary on the
Market Supervision Proceedings, issued on 11 October 2021 and received by the Company
from its legal representative on 18 October 2021, the MNB prohibited the Company to
repeat the behaviour implementing the violation of law set out in the decision, namely the
violation of legal regulations on the prohibition of market manipulation set out in the
regulation of the European Union on market abuse.
MNB found the application of the prohibition of repeating the behaviour implementing the
violation of law as ‘necessary and also sufficient measure’ (quotation from the decision).
The behaviour objected to by MNB is that according to the decision, in case of some of the
asset elements involved in the capital increase (real estates), the Company was unable to
prove that ‘documented, later presentable real estate valuation had been made before the
announcement or the sale and purchase of the real estates’ (quotation from the decision).
The Company points out that according to the conclusion of MNB the ‘logics and method
(presented by the Company later in the proceedings) for preparing decisions made for the
purchase of the real estates is acceptable and the relevant purchase prices are also
acceptable’ (quotation from the decision), furthermore the value of the real estates was
later confirmed by an external specialist as well.
The Company disputes that it would have violated the law.
|PODPISY OSÓB REPREZENTUJĄCYCH SPÓŁKĘ|
|Data||Imię i Nazwisko||Stanowisko/Funkcja||Podpis|
|2021-11-18||Csaba Soós||Board of Directors|