this story does not sound accurate. if Malma truly had good finances before this, it could simply take out another loan at a different bank, who would presumably look at Malma's true finances and ignore this fake immediate payment. it is standard for major companies to renew their loans at different financial institutions at different rates, and a single call bankrupting a company would mean that the company was already in dire shape. this is consistent with https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/emcc/erm/facts..., which says that the bank claims that the company was managed poorly, and the management claims that it was caused by reduced Russian demand as well as increased interest rates.
The story is still more complex than this. Basically Malma had a few credits already, then Pekao proposed a unifying credit + to help with the IPO as a way to get funds for expansion, but the IPO never happened.
Perhaps the timing of all those things was bad and company was too ambitious with expansion plans. But there are a few details about the bank behavior that feel off. If the company was in hopeless situation, why the bank offered the credit at all? I guess we'll never know all the accurate details.
