Unity Bank Plc has notified shareholders and other stakeholders that the bank is in talks with
an American outfit Milost Global Inc, but said media reports that the investment amounts
$1,000,000,000.00(N360billion) is not true.

In a statement on the matter signed by Unity Bank’s Company Secretary,Mohammed Shehu,the bank maintained that
Pursuant to various Regulators’ advice to the Bank in recent times on the need to shore up
its capital base, the Bank with the mandate of its shareholders had engaged in series of
discussions and engagement with prospective “value-plus investors”.

He stated that all through these engagements, the Bank has been properly guided by the extant regulations concerning capital
raising and equally made the process open to all prospective investors.

According to him “Milost Global Inc. is one of the prospective investors introduced to the Bank by a local
entity called Mayo BV. It is not unusual that this introduction and expression of
interests would involve some level of preliminary discussions and exchange of nonbinding
documentary communications between the intending parties towards establishing mutual foundation on
which the transaction contemplated will be

He explained that the “Term Sheet” dated September 4,2017 said to have been executed was
a “proposal” submitted by Milost Global Inc. “for discussion purposes only and NOT
a commitment” by the parties. No definitive documentation governing the proposed
financing was executed.

He revealed that it was in relation to the preliminary discussions that courtesy visits were exchanged
between representatives of Milost and the Bank in 2017 and early 2018.

He disclosed that the Bank’s Managing Director/CEO Mrs. Tomi Somefun was in New York in October 2017 for other engagements and
decided to visit Milost and verify the firm’s address as well as put a face to the officers
of Milost that have been engaging the Bank via telephone and emails. A brief meeting
was held and discussions were around the dynamics of Milost proposal to Unity Bank
Plc, and socialization of the policies and regulations around equity investment in

” Also, there is no iota of truth in the allegation that the Bank had executed a ”binding
commitment agreement”. The Bank’s position is on the premise that a document
prepared by Milost and which the Bank acknowledged merely contained the suggested
terms and conditions on which Milost was planning to consider its possible
participation in the Capital funding of the Bank. As stated in our previous
correspondence, the Bank through the mandate of its Board and shareholders has
been involved in series of preliminary engagements with several prospective investors
including Milost, but the Bank did not execute a binding definitive
agreement with Milost GlobalInc.

” It is therefore a misnomer for anyone to claim that the Bank issued a false statement relative to
the nature of the communication between Milost and the Bank. The nomenclature “Commitment Letter” was
apparently adopted by Milost in its communication to buttress its seriousness to
proceed with the transactions subject to relevant compliance requirements.

“As regards threat mails allegedly received by Milost Global, the Bank reaffirms its
position that such mails did not emanate from it. The Bank therefore is unable to verify
such allegation.

“Furthermore, considering that Milost and the Bank were only still engaged in
preliminary discussions, which must necessarily be subjected to relevant regulatory,
statutory and corporate governance compliance parameters before such discussions
could become elevated to the level of a “binding commitment agreement” properly so
called, the issue of “Termination” of the “Transaction” does not arise,”he stated

Leave a Reply