THE DISTRICT COURT DIFFERENTIATED COMPENSATORY FINANCING AND INVESTMENTS

The Court of first instance granted the application, rejecting the arguments of the debtor's controlling persons that the loan agreement on which the claim was based was compensatory financing.

The appeal subordinated the claims, having seen the presence of signs of the actual affiliation of the creditor and the debtor and, consequently, compensatory financing.

The district court upheld the ruling of the first instance and pointed out that the creditor had proved the economic motive for providing the debtor with an interest-free loan secured by the lease right belonging to him.

The cassation noted the creditor's arguments that the disputed loan was an investment in order to obtain rights to an object under construction located on a land plot.

In addition, the court drew attention to the fact that the creditor made attempts to recover the debt and foreclosure on the collateral, since he appealed to the court of general jurisdiction with a claim against the debtor and guarantors (controlling persons), the dispute lasted several years and passed 3 instances.