RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
11/05/2024
Saturday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
11 May 
2004 The longest reality show of the Russian television "Dom-2" started.
2004 The longest reality show of the Russian television "Dom-2" started
1949 The Kingdom of Siam was renamed Thailand.
1949 The Kingdom of Siam was renamed Thailand.
1931 The bankruptcy of the Austrian bank “Credit-Anstalt” began a financial crisis in Central Europe.
1931 The bankruptcy of the Austrian bank “Credit-Anstalt” began a financial crisis in Central Europe.
11 May
2004 The longest reality show of the Russian television "Dom-2" started.
2004 The longest reality show of the Russian television "Dom-2" started
1949 The Kingdom of Siam was renamed Thailand.
1949 The Kingdom of Siam was renamed Thailand.
1931 The bankruptcy of the Austrian bank “Credit-Anstalt” began a financial crisis in Central Europe.
1931 The bankruptcy of the Austrian bank “Credit-Anstalt” began a financial crisis in Central Europe.
Supreme Court of Russia to solve the issue of passive behavior of the debtor
On May 12, the Supreme Court will hold a hearing related to the bankruptcy case No. À40-109235/2020. Two issues turned out to be problematic in it, one of which is of substantive legal significance, and the second is a procedural one.
In the first case, the board will have to figure out whether the guarantor under the loan agreement should be responsible for the actions of the borrower if the agreement was changed without his consent. In the second case, the judges will have to find out whether the lower courts were right when refused to include the claims of creditor in the register only because the debtor was not active in the lawsuit.
The deal was concluded between “MTS-Bank” and MG-Finance. The bank opened a non-revolving line of credit for the company, and INOVA became the guarantor of the transaction. Subsequently, the terms of the agreement were changed, the credit line became revolving, the validity period increased along with the limits. INOVA did not want to remain a guarantor. At the same time, the debtor (MG-Finance) returned part of the loan, and then stopped paying the bills. The bank eventually demanded money from the guarantor.
It would seem that the borrowing company repaid the initial debt within the agreed limits and terms, which means that the guarantor does not have to return those tranches that were received by MG-Finance after changing the essential terms of the transaction. However, “MTS Bank” still managed to get a positive decision from the arbitration court by including its claims in the register of creditors’ claims in the bankruptcy of INOVA.
It is curious that the courts did not pay attention to the requirement of Article 367 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. According to it, a partially fulfilled obligation must be set off against the unsecured part of the debt (paragraph 2, clause 1). It means that payments under the loan agreement made by the company should have been taken into account when repaying tranches issued by the bank after the loan terms were changed. Now the Board of the Supreme Court of Russia must put an end to the dispute.
In the first case, the board will have to figure out whether the guarantor under the loan agreement should be responsible for the actions of the borrower if the agreement was changed without his consent. In the second case, the judges will have to find out whether the lower courts were right when refused to include the claims of creditor in the register only because the debtor was not active in the lawsuit.
The deal was concluded between “MTS-Bank” and MG-Finance. The bank opened a non-revolving line of credit for the company, and INOVA became the guarantor of the transaction. Subsequently, the terms of the agreement were changed, the credit line became revolving, the validity period increased along with the limits. INOVA did not want to remain a guarantor. At the same time, the debtor (MG-Finance) returned part of the loan, and then stopped paying the bills. The bank eventually demanded money from the guarantor.
It would seem that the borrowing company repaid the initial debt within the agreed limits and terms, which means that the guarantor does not have to return those tranches that were received by MG-Finance after changing the essential terms of the transaction. However, “MTS Bank” still managed to get a positive decision from the arbitration court by including its claims in the register of creditors’ claims in the bankruptcy of INOVA.
The reason was the lack of activity of the company's representatives in court.
However, the courts of three instances did not take into account the company's debts, despite the presence of a judicial act. The bank complained to the Supreme Court, referring to the requirement of the relevant law (Article 16). It contains a ban on challenging the size and composition of those claims that are confirmed by a court verdict (which means that they have prejudicial force).It is curious that the courts did not pay attention to the requirement of Article 367 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. According to it, a partially fulfilled obligation must be set off against the unsecured part of the debt (paragraph 2, clause 1). It means that payments under the loan agreement made by the company should have been taken into account when repaying tranches issued by the bank after the loan terms were changed. Now the Board of the Supreme Court of Russia must put an end to the dispute.
27.04.2022
