RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
18/10/2024
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
18 October 
1970 The first ever space flight of a cat (Felicette).
1970 A decree on the equalization of the rights of peasants with other estates was issued in Russia. This concerned the civil service, freedom to choose a permanent residence and the abolition of corporal punishment.
1970 Alaska passed from Russia to the United States.
18 October
1970 The first ever space flight of a cat (Felicette).
1970 A decree on the equalization of the rights of peasants with other estates was issued in Russia. This concerned the civil service, freedom to choose a permanent residence and the abolition of corporal punishment.
1970 Alaska passed from Russia to the United States.
DISPUTES ABOUT THE SENIORITY OF COLLATERAL CAN BE COMPLEX
In the framework of the bankruptcy case (no. A40-278571/21), the bank appealed to the court to challenge the actions of the creditor aimed at registering a notice of pledge of movable property.
In refusing to satisfy the application, the courts of two instances were guided by the fact that the bank's application was aimed at reviewing the judicial act.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration and pointed out the following:
• Contrary to the conclusions of the courts, the property that is the subject of collateral at the request of the creditor is pledged by the bank. The bank and the creditor are the mortgagees of the same property.
• The parties to the dispute established the seniority of the pledges in court, for the reason that the collateral claims against the debtor were addressed in respect of the same property.
• The conclusions of the court of first instance, in fact, relate to giving preference to satisfying the claims of collateral creditors, including the seniority of collateral, as well as the collateral status of the bank's claims against the debtor in respect of the same property.
The judicial Board of the district court believes that the bank's cassation appeal is subject to satisfaction in terms of excluding from the reasoning part of the ruling of the court of first instance the conclusions contained in the last paragraph on page 3 and in paragraphs 8 and 9 on page 4, namely:
"The court has not been presented with evidence of preference to one of the creditors over other creditors in respect of satisfaction claims, since the property that is the subject of collateral at the request of the creditor is not pledged to the bank.»
"Information about the collateral in favor of the creditor's legal successor was sent to the credit history bureau and was available for use by the bank. Even at the stage of checking the borrower, the bank, being a professional participant in the lending market, with sufficient care had or should have had information about the debtor's collateral obligations to the creditor's legal successor and about the subject of collateral from the debtor's credit history available to him."
In refusing to satisfy the application, the courts of two instances were guided by the fact that the bank's application was aimed at reviewing the judicial act.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration and pointed out the following:
• Contrary to the conclusions of the courts, the property that is the subject of collateral at the request of the creditor is pledged by the bank. The bank and the creditor are the mortgagees of the same property.
• The parties to the dispute established the seniority of the pledges in court, for the reason that the collateral claims against the debtor were addressed in respect of the same property.
• The conclusions of the court of first instance, in fact, relate to giving preference to satisfying the claims of collateral creditors, including the seniority of collateral, as well as the collateral status of the bank's claims against the debtor in respect of the same property.
The judicial Board of the district court believes that the bank's cassation appeal is subject to satisfaction in terms of excluding from the reasoning part of the ruling of the court of first instance the conclusions contained in the last paragraph on page 3 and in paragraphs 8 and 9 on page 4, namely:
"The court has not been presented with evidence of preference to one of the creditors over other creditors in respect of satisfaction claims, since the property that is the subject of collateral at the request of the creditor is not pledged to the bank.»
"Information about the collateral in favor of the creditor's legal successor was sent to the credit history bureau and was available for use by the bank. Even at the stage of checking the borrower, the bank, being a professional participant in the lending market, with sufficient care had or should have had information about the debtor's collateral obligations to the creditor's legal successor and about the subject of collateral from the debtor's credit history available to him."
05.07.2024
