RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
27/04/2024
Saturday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
27 April 
1970 The opening of the subway in Yekaterinburg
1970 The opening of the subway in Yekaterinburg
1970 The population was evacuated from Pripyat after the Chernobyl accident - all 40 thousand inhabitants were evacuated in 3 hours
1970 The population was evacuated from Pripyat after the Chernobyl accident - all 40 thousand inhabitants were evacuated in 3 hours
1970 The beginning of the civil war in Afghanistan, which continues up to this day
1970 The beginning of the civil war in Afghanistan, which continues up to this day
27 April
1970 The opening of the subway in Yekaterinburg
1970 The opening of the subway in Yekaterinburg
1970 The population was evacuated from Pripyat after the Chernobyl accident - all 40 thousand inhabitants were evacuated in 3 hours
1970 The population was evacuated from Pripyat after the Chernobyl accident - all 40 thousand inhabitants were evacuated in 3 hours
1970 The beginning of the civil war in Afghanistan, which continues up to this day
1970 The beginning of the civil war in Afghanistan, which continues up to this day
NOT EVERY LOAN ISSUANCE ENTAILS A SUBSIDY FROM THE BANK'S MANAGEMENT
As part of the bank's bankruptcy case (No. A40-232020/15), the manager appealed to the court with an application to bring the debtor's managers to subsidiary liability.
Satisfying the application, the courts of two instances proceeded from the fact that the defendants approved the issuance of loans to "technical" borrowers.
The cassation, partially canceling judicial acts and refusing to satisfy the claims against the defendants, pointed out that the returned loans, in principle, cannot be imputed to the controlling person as transactions that led to the bankruptcy of the debtor, since there is no such qualifying feature as harm to creditors from their commission.
The issuance by the bank of group I of loans, including those signed and approved by the defendants, taking into account the circumstances of their repayment, did not lead to a negative economic effect for the debtor, which indicates the absence of a sign of harm to creditors, which is why there are no conditions for imposing subsidiary liability on the defendants.
At the same time, the district court took into account that the courts did not establish the circumstances that the repayment of group I loans was made by borrowers at the expense of funds received from the bank under group II loan agreements, as well as "technical" banking operations within the bank.
In written explanations and oral explanations during the court session of the district court, the bankruptcy trustee informed the court that evidence that would confirm the above circumstances was not presented in the case file, and also that the repayment of loan obligations under the I group of loans was not disputed by the bankruptcy trustee as invalid transactions, there were no claims for debt collection.
Rejecting the arguments of the bankruptcy trustee with reference to the existence of a criminal case against a number of defendants, the district court took into account that at the time of consideration of a separate dispute in the courts, as well as at the time of consideration of cassation complaints, there was no verdict against any of the defendants related to the issuance of group I loans, an indictment in a criminal case it is not a relevant and acceptable proof.
Satisfying the application, the courts of two instances proceeded from the fact that the defendants approved the issuance of loans to "technical" borrowers.
The cassation, partially canceling judicial acts and refusing to satisfy the claims against the defendants, pointed out that the returned loans, in principle, cannot be imputed to the controlling person as transactions that led to the bankruptcy of the debtor, since there is no such qualifying feature as harm to creditors from their commission.
The issuance by the bank of group I of loans, including those signed and approved by the defendants, taking into account the circumstances of their repayment, did not lead to a negative economic effect for the debtor, which indicates the absence of a sign of harm to creditors, which is why there are no conditions for imposing subsidiary liability on the defendants.
At the same time, the district court took into account that the courts did not establish the circumstances that the repayment of group I loans was made by borrowers at the expense of funds received from the bank under group II loan agreements, as well as "technical" banking operations within the bank.
In written explanations and oral explanations during the court session of the district court, the bankruptcy trustee informed the court that evidence that would confirm the above circumstances was not presented in the case file, and also that the repayment of loan obligations under the I group of loans was not disputed by the bankruptcy trustee as invalid transactions, there were no claims for debt collection.
Rejecting the arguments of the bankruptcy trustee with reference to the existence of a criminal case against a number of defendants, the district court took into account that at the time of consideration of a separate dispute in the courts, as well as at the time of consideration of cassation complaints, there was no verdict against any of the defendants related to the issuance of group I loans, an indictment in a criminal case it is not a relevant and acceptable proof.
28.03.2024
