NOT ALL BANK MANAGERS WILL BE INVOLVED IN THE SUBSIDY

NOT ALL BANK MANAGERS WILL BE INVOLVED IN THE SUBSIDY

NOT ALL BANK MANAGERS WILL BE INVOLVED IN THE SUBSIDY
The manager appealed to the court with an application to bring the bank's controlling persons to subsidiary liability (case No. A40-148648/16).

The courts of two instances satisfied the application, guided by the fact that the defendants committed actions to approve loans to technical borrowers, which led to the bankruptcy of the bank.

The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in part, pointing out the following:

In this case, the judicial acts do not contain circumstances established by the courts and conclusions as to which of the defendants and for what amount of non-refunded (partially refunded) funds of the bank were issued (signed and (or) approved, which available documents confirm) those or other non-refunded (partially refunded) loans, to which borrowers, characteristics such borrowers as technical ones precisely on the date of issuance of non-repaid (partially repaid) loans, including the non-compliance of the credit dossier of each of these borrowers with certain requirements of the Regulations on the Procedure for the Formation by credit institutions of reserves for possible losses on loans, on loan and equivalent debt, approved by the Bank of Russia, on the relevant date.

The manager did not provide explanations indicating episodes of unprofitable actions committed by specific defendants (the number of loan agreements indicating the number of loans issued and amounts of credit funds, other transactions (corresponding amounts) for the amount of damage established by the courts (the unpaid part of loans, transferred rights).

In addition, the courts admitted a contradiction in establishing the status of the defendants as shareholders of the bank (the reflected share of participation differs and does not correspond to the actual circumstances), as well as in indicating that one of the defendants signed loan agreements as deputy chairman of the bank's management board, despite the fact that the court found that he was a shareholder, a member of the management board and member of the Credit and Investment Committee. In the cassation complaints, the defendants claim that they own 1% of the bank's shares, and not 20% of the participation, as indicated by the courts.

With regard to the qualification of loans initially granted to technical borrowers, the courts did not assess the defendant's claims that of the loan agreements imputed to him under 48 contracts, loans were repaid in full, 17 contracts were partially repaid, and also that debts were overdue for part of the loans by the bankruptcy trustee, but all measures to enforce judicial decisions were not taken acts that served as the basis, including for the court's refusal to write off borrowers' receivables from the bank's balance sheet.

07.10.2024