RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
09/05/2024
Thursday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
9 May 
2021 Victory Day.
2020 Victory Day
1944 The city of Sevastopol was liberated.
1944 The city of Sevastopol was liberated.
1936 Mussolini announced the accession of Ethiopia to Italy.
1936 Mussolini announced the accession of Ethiopia to Italy.
9 May
2021 Victory Day.
2020 Victory Day
1944 The city of Sevastopol was liberated.
1944 The city of Sevastopol was liberated.
1936 Mussolini announced the accession of Ethiopia to Italy.
1936 Mussolini announced the accession of Ethiopia to Italy.
THE APPROACH TO DETERMINING THE MOMENT OF BANK INSOLVENCY SHOULD BE UNIFORM
In the framework of the bank's bankruptcy case (No. A62-7344/13), the manager appealed to the court with an application to challenge the transaction on the alienation of the debtor's property.
Refusing to satisfy the application, the courts of three instances proceeded from the lack of evidence of the transaction in violation of the requirements of the law, the availability of a file on the correspondent subaccount at the date of the transaction at the bank's branch, as well as in connection with the commission of the disputed transaction within the framework of the ordinary business activities of the credit institution. In addition, the courts noted the absence of evidence in the case file of the defendants' interest in relation to the debtor.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation sent the dispute for reconsideration, noting the following:
The courts did not take into account the manager's reference to the fact that at the time of the transaction (11/29/2013), the credit institution already had unfulfilled requirements of other customers, which is confirmed by a letter from the bank signed by the head of the presence of unverified payment orders from customers.
The courts did not take into account that the manager indicated the lack of sufficient funds in the correspondent account as the reason for the non-payment. Consequently, this argument could not be formally rejected by the courts, without clarifying the real reasons for non-fulfillment of orders.
The bankruptcy trustee also referred to the conclusion of the Central Bank, which states that on 11/29/2013 the bank's branch notified customers, partners and counterparties of the bank about the situation with non-payment of the bank's correspondent account by posting information on the website. During the day, on 11/29/2013, the branch offices were suspended, and on 11/30/2013, the remote banking system was suspended.
In addition, when considering this case in the framework of other separate disputes, circumstances were established that as of 11/29/2013 the bank had unfulfilled obligations to other creditors.
Thus, there is a situation in which, within the framework of one bankruptcy case, there is no uniform approach to determining the moment when a file of unfulfilled payment documents arises, and therefore separate disputes about challenging the debtor's transactions from the same date are resolved in different ways.
In support of the statement, the manager indicated that the next day after the transaction (11/30/2013), the defendant joined the bank's shareholders with a 9.9% stake. The fact of his participation in the bank's share capital presupposes his awareness of the revocation of the banking license.
Refusing to satisfy the application, the courts of three instances proceeded from the lack of evidence of the transaction in violation of the requirements of the law, the availability of a file on the correspondent subaccount at the date of the transaction at the bank's branch, as well as in connection with the commission of the disputed transaction within the framework of the ordinary business activities of the credit institution. In addition, the courts noted the absence of evidence in the case file of the defendants' interest in relation to the debtor.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation sent the dispute for reconsideration, noting the following:
The courts did not take into account the manager's reference to the fact that at the time of the transaction (11/29/2013), the credit institution already had unfulfilled requirements of other customers, which is confirmed by a letter from the bank signed by the head of the presence of unverified payment orders from customers.
The courts did not take into account that the manager indicated the lack of sufficient funds in the correspondent account as the reason for the non-payment. Consequently, this argument could not be formally rejected by the courts, without clarifying the real reasons for non-fulfillment of orders.
The bankruptcy trustee also referred to the conclusion of the Central Bank, which states that on 11/29/2013 the bank's branch notified customers, partners and counterparties of the bank about the situation with non-payment of the bank's correspondent account by posting information on the website. During the day, on 11/29/2013, the branch offices were suspended, and on 11/30/2013, the remote banking system was suspended.
In addition, when considering this case in the framework of other separate disputes, circumstances were established that as of 11/29/2013 the bank had unfulfilled obligations to other creditors.
Thus, there is a situation in which, within the framework of one bankruptcy case, there is no uniform approach to determining the moment when a file of unfulfilled payment documents arises, and therefore separate disputes about challenging the debtor's transactions from the same date are resolved in different ways.
In support of the statement, the manager indicated that the next day after the transaction (11/30/2013), the defendant joined the bank's shareholders with a 9.9% stake. The fact of his participation in the bank's share capital presupposes his awareness of the revocation of the banking license.
27.04.2024
