THE COURT HAS SORTED OUT THE SUBORDINATION OF THE CLAIM IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF A CITIZEN

In the framework of the bankruptcy case of an individual (No. A76-32466/21), the creditor (bank) applied to the court with an application for inclusion of the claim in the register. The claim arose from credit agreements concluded between the bank and the company, the debtor acted as a guarantor under the agreements.

The company was declared bankrupt. In addition, the creditor applied to the court with a statement of procedural succession to the bank's claims, justifying the statement by the fact that a cession agreement was concluded between him and the bank, under the terms of which the bank's claims were transferred to the creditor (both under loan agreements and to the guarantor).

The court of First instance refused to satisfy both applications, referring to the fact that, as follows from the interpretation of the terms of the assignment agreement, the intention of the parties was not to transfer claims, but to terminate the obligations of the guarantor to the bank.

In addition, the court noted the fact of affiliation of the creditor and the debtor, as well as the fact that the assignment was paid at the expense of the debtor's father and the creditor, which the court considered compensatory financing.

The appeal did not agree with this approach regarding the refusal of the claim to the register and subordinated the creditor.

The district court upheld the ruling of the first instance, pointing out the existence of contradictions in the position of the appeal in terms of agreement with the arguments about the compensatory nature of financing and the application of the position of subordination.

In addition, the court noted the inadmissibility of subordination of creditors' claims in bankruptcy cases of citizens.

The arguments of the cassation on the meaning of certain provisions of the review of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on subordination are noteworthy.

The Court noted that a number of clarifications provided in the review do not concern the actual lowering of the priority of satisfying creditors' claims, but their validity (when imaginary, fulfilled requirements are presented to the register by persons related to the debtor, etc.).

Also, the court pointed out that the legislation on the insolvency of citizens does not contain provisions that a particular individual or legal entity, under certain circumstances, is obliged to file for bankruptcy of another individual, refraining from providing him with financing. The obligation to apply to the court for bankruptcy of a third person who is in a state of property crisis is fixed only in relation to insolvent organizations: it is imposed by law on the persons controlling them, under the influence of which the will of the bankrupt is formed.

Thus, the district court gave a very detailed interpretation of the institution of subordination of creditors' claims, based on its nature and in relation to categories of bankrupt entities.

Photo by Freepik