“On 29.8.2017. the Website www.total-croatia-news.com published an article titled “Russian oligarch and Putin’s also to build most luxurious building on adriatic” by Sonja Babić.
In that article, incorrect information was published and thereby rights and interests of Mr. Zvonko Stojević and the compnay Orsula d.o.o. (the Applicants) were violated, for which the Applicant has the right to request the publication of a correction pursuant to Article 40 of the Media Act (OG 59/2004, 84/2011, 81/2013) within 30 days from the publication of inaccurate information. In accordance with Art. 40 of the Media Act, the Applicants request the Editor of the Website www.total-croatia-news.com to publish correction of the published information as prescribed by art. 41. -42. The Media Act, in particular, at the same or equivalent location of the program space, and in the same way as the information to which the correction relates. In this case, on the same location of the Website www.total-croatia-news.com. Subsequently, the Applicants explain the inaccurate information as follows:
Quote: “Thirty-two years later, the High Commercial Court of Croatia, in early July, confirmed the judgement of the first instance court of Commercial Court in Zagreb, rejecting the claim of Cleostone LTD, offshore company from Panama which is also the majority owner of Ina d.d. and Vila Larus d.o.o., namely Zvonko Stojevic, a former shareholder of Belvedere dd, . “
Reasoning: It is an inaccurate and misleading information that thirty-two years later, the High Commercial Court of the Republic of Croatia upheld the First Instance judgement of the Commercial Court in Zagreb, rejecting the claim of Cleostone Corp and Mr. Zvonko Stojević. The claim was filed by the Cleostone Corp. on 1 July 2014. The first-instance judgement was issued on 4 March 2016 and the High Commercial Court upheld the verdict of the first-instance court on 6 July 2017. It follows that VTS confirmed the Commercial Court judgment in Zagreb after 16 months. It is untrue and misleading information that the “Cleostone LTD or “Zvonko Stojevic” claim was rejected. The claim was not raised by Mr. Zvonko Stojević and Mr. Zvonko Stojević was not a party to the proceedings.
Quote: “After the final judgement of the High Commercial Court, Stojevic still has the possibility of an extraordinary legal remedy, i.e. audit before the Supreme Court of Croatia.”
Reasoning: It is an incorrect and misleading information that Mr Stojevic is a party to the proceedings and therefore he does not have “the possibility of an extraordinary legal remedy or an audit before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia”, but only the majority shareholder of 53.75% of the shares of Belvedere d.d. in bankruptcy, who filed the lawsuit against INA and Villa Larus d.o.o. for the purpose of establishing the nullity of the Purchase agreements.
Quote: :”…and some of them deem that the part of the court costs would remain outstanding since Cleostone allegedly did not pay the security for the costs in its entirety,…”
Reasoning: It is incorrect and misleading information that Cleostone Corp. “did not pay the security for the costs in its entirety”
The Commercial Court in Zagreb issued a decision court no. P-1626/2014 of 20.1.2015 by which it adopts in full the application of the respondant Villa Larus d.o.o. for the security of court costs, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay 1,000,000.00 kn to the court deposit for the security of court costs.
The Commercial Court in Zagreb issued a decision no. P-1626/2014 of 31.3.2015. by which Cleostone Corp was ordered to pay the amount of HRK 1,000,000.00 to the account of the court for the security of court costs.
On 29.4.2015. Cleostone Corp. submitted to the court a motion and evidenced therein the payment of the amount of HRK 1,000,000.00 for the purpose of securing the court costs. By the VTS judgement 57 Pž-5395 / 2016-3 dated July 6, 2017 Vili Larus d.o.o. was awarded court costs. in the amount of HRK 376,250.00 and INA in the amount of HRK 376,250.00, which is a total of HRK 752,500.00.
Quote: “…. majority creditor in bankruptcy proceedings, Orsula d.o.o., owned by Zvonko Stojevic, prevent further recovery of the claims proposing various bankruptcy plans.”
Reasoning: It is incorrect and misleading information that Orsula d.o.o. prevents further recovery of the claims proposing various bankruptcy plans.
Pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act, the bankruptcy trustee, the bankruptcy judge and the creditor’s assembly must agree with the bankruptcy plan, and accordingly Orusla d.o.o. as one of the creditors, cannot even theoretically prevent further credit claims from being collected with bankruptcy plan proposals. It is correct that at the Creditor’s Assembly, held in Dubrovnik on 19.7.2016, voted with 85.7 percent of the total votes of the Creditor’s Assembly, that bankruptcy proceedings over Belvedere d.d. are to be finalised with a bankruptcy plan by restructuring of Belvedere d.d. in bankruptcy. Orsula d.o.o. has participated in the Creditor’s Assembly with 49.2 percent of the total votes of the Creditor’s Assembly. The Creditor’s Assembly decision itself reads:
“Pursuant to Article 214 of the Bankruptcy Act the bankruptcy trustee is ordered to prepare a bankruptcy plan in accordance with the platform for guidelines for issuance of a-bankruptcy plan, which he shall submit to the bankruptcy judge in due time prior to the conclusion of the final hearing“
A group of creditors who participated with 6.1 percent of the votes of the Creditor’s Assembly and voted against the proposal appealed the decision of the Creditor’s Assembly and later decision of the court to the High Commercial Court. The High Commercial Court upheld the decision of the Creditor’s Assembly by means of the decision court no. 78 Pž-5938-16 from 13.9.2016.
Quote:”… opening bankruptcy proceedings regarding Orsula company, which allegedly has been blocked for years and owes to the state over HRK 1.5m without interest.”
Reasoning: It is an incorrect and misleading information that over Orsula d.o.o. a bankruptcy procedure is opened and that Orsula d.o.o. owes to the state over HRK 1.5 million without interest. The process of determining the amount owed by Orsula d.o.o. to creditors is ongoing on the basis of FINA’s proposal for opening of bankruptcy proceedings at the Commercial Court in Zagreb. On the proposal to settle all claims against Orsula d.o.o. a decision of the Commercial Court in Zagreb is currently awaited.
Quote: „2001 In the coupon privatization, the largest equity in Belvedere Hotel of 53.75 percent was taken over by the Panamanian company Cleostone…“
Reasoning: It is incorrect and misleading that the ownership stake at Hotel Belvedere was taken over in the coupon privatization. It is correct that it was taken over by purchasing 50.05 percent of shares on the Zagreb Stock Exchange, where there was a competition with another buyer. The remaining portion of 3.7 percent of the shares was purchased through a public offering from the shareholders of Belvedere d.d.
Quote: 2010. INA initiates enforcement proceedings to collect its receivables of around six million euros.“
Reasoning: It is incorrect and misleading that INA’s claims towards Belvedere d.d. amounted to six million euros. INA’s claims amounted to HRK 24,430,298.30 (USD 3,315,188.47). The remaining amount were interest and default interest which were accounted by INA to Belvedere d.d., this amounted to total of 20,170,308.27 kn. After the opening of bankruptcy over Belvedere d.d., the total amount of registered claims of INA amounted to HRK 44,600,606.50 on 26 July 2012. By decision of the VTS Pž-8007/14 of 7.1.2015. the appeals of of bankruptcy creditors Zvonko Stojević, Cleostone Corp and Orsula d.o.o. were accepted, and the decision of the Commercial Court in Split, Permanent office in Dubrovnik, which unlawfully rendered the default interest in the amount of HRK 20,170,308.27, was revoked and the case was reinstated. In the re-trial, by a decision of the Commercial Court in Split, Permanent office in Dubrovnik court no. St-21/2012 of 14.5.2015 Ina d.d. claims to the debtor were established in the amount to HRK 24,430,298.30 with no right on default interest. For the aforementioned amount INA was paid, as a secured creditor, by direct sale of all properties of Belvedere d.d., which were estimated by INA and public notary Jožica Matko Ruždjak to the amount of 181,887,376.44 kn (24,361,497.81 euros) .
Quote: „2014. At the third auction Hotel Belvedere is bought by Vila Larus…“
Reasoning: It is incorrect and misleading information that Vila Larus bought Hotel Belvedere on the third auction. According to the Notarial Record it was the second oral public auction. It is also evident from the Purchase Agreement and the Record that INA was the seller and sold the hotel and land directly to VilA Larus d.o.o. Attorneys of Cleostone Corp. believe that the decisions of the First Instance and Second Instance Courts have been brought unlawfully and for that reason have filed a revision to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia.
Subscribe to our newsletter
the fields marked with * are requiredRelated posts:
Dubrovnik’s Belvedere to Bid Farewell as New Luxury Hotel Project Begins
Russian Millionaire Viktor Vekselberg Finally Gets Permission to Build Belvedere
Dubrovnik’s Future ”New Belvedere” Hotel Could Host G8 Leaders!
Belvedere Drama: City of Dubrovnik Refuses to Sell Land, Davor Štern to Seek Concession
