THE DISTRICT COURT RELIEVED THE OWNERS OF VIM-AVIA OF OBLIGATIONS FOR 1.19 BILLION

The Court of cassation considered the dispute on the recovery of the debt of the bankrupt airline from its former owners Rashid and Svetlana Mursekaev, who acted as guarantors for the loans of VIM-Avia airline (case no. A40-167541/2020). The business owners were declared insolvent in May 2021. The legal center "Parity", which replaced the company "AMI-I" as a creditor in the lawsuit, demanded to include 1.19 billion rubles in the register.

In the court of first instance, the PC "Parity" found support while the appeal reduced the volume of claims against Mursekaev by 95 million rubles. After that, the Mursekaevs, together with their financial manager, complained to the district court, demanding a review of the case. The bankruptcy trustee of the VIM-Avia airline, which was declared bankrupt on September 26, 2018, also filed a complaint there. The reason for this, according to the applicants, was the incorrect calculation of the terms by the courts.

Loan agreements were taken by VIM-Avia in several banks in 2016-2017. Both organizations subsequently ceded their rights to AMI-I. As a result, the amount of 1.19 billion was included in the third stage of the register in the bankruptcy of the airline. It would seem that the procedural replacement of the creditor ("AMI-I" with the PC "Parity") should not have affected the obligations. However, the defendant considered that the statute of limitations had been missed and the payment requirements were unfair.

The Court of First Instance was guided by the fact that the surety agreements were concluded for three years (until September 26, 2021), starting from the moment when the main borrower (VIM-Avia) became bankrupt. The application from the PC "Parity" was received in July 2021.

The appeal decided that one of the loan agreements (dated December 26, 2016) is not subject to application, since the three-year period after the start of its execution (December 25, 2017) expired in December 2020 (paragraph 6 of Article 367 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). At the same time, the court referred to paragraph 5 of the Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 28 dated January 20, 1998. Thus, the court decided that it was unreasonable to demand 95 million rubles of debt under this agreement. The appeal upheld the obligations of the guarantors on three other loans.

The cassation reminded the participants of the process of the content of Article 4 of the bankruptcy Law, drawing attention to the difference in the validity of the guarantee (or pledge) and the statute of limitations. At the same time, the appeal to the court with the main requirement, as previously explained by the highest instance (Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 43 of September 29, 2015), does not affect the timing of additional requirements (including surety).

Termination of an obligation under a surety agreement (clause 1 of Article 407 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) is not the same as the expiration of the statute of limitations. In this case, we are talking about the refusal of protection by the court, although the obligation itself is not recognized as terminated (Article 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

The District Court decided that the lower courts had not established the essential circumstance necessary to resolve the dispute – the date when the creditor learned (or should have learned) about the violation of his right. After all, the recognition of VIM-Avia as bankrupt does not mean that the creditor did not have information before that his right was violated. As a result, the case was sent by cassation for a new examination, and the judicial acts adopted on the contested claims of the PC "Parity" over 1 billion were canceled.

Photo: Wikipedia