THE SUPREME COURT OF RUSSIA CLARIFIED THE PRIORITY OF CLAIMS OF SPONSOR IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF PRINCIPAL

THE SUPREME COURT OF RUSSIA CLARIFIED THE PRIORITY OF CLAIMS OF SPONSOR IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF PRINCIPAL

THE SUPREME COURT OF RUSSIA CLARIFIED THE PRIORITY OF CLAIMS OF SPONSOR IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF PRINCIPAL

The Supreme Court considered the case on the inclusion of the principal's debt to the sponsor in the register of creditors' claims within the framework of the bank guarantee agreement previously concluded between the parties. The creditor was not satisfied with the fact that the lower courts found it possible to satisfy his claims only at the expense of the property that would remain after the claims of other creditors were satisfied.



The Supreme Court had to resolve the conflict of priorities for satisfying the claims.

The higher court rejected the decisions made by the colleagues and sent the case for reconsideration, indicating the following:

1. The replenishment of the property mass of the sponsor when collecting the amount paid by him under the contract from the principal occurs within the framework of the regression mechanism, but not the subrogation, which generates a new obligation, but not a change of persons in the existing one.

2. According to the current general rule, the obligations arising after the court accepts the application for declaring the debtor bankrupt, are current. However, this does not apply to recourse obligations under a bank guarantee, which, according to the article 7 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation dated July 23, 2009, No. 63 "On current payments for monetary obligations in a bankruptcy case" must be included in the register of creditors' claims and are not recognized as current subject to a number of conditions. The legal relationship within the framework of the bank guarantee arose before the initiation of the bankruptcy procedure of the principal and the payment of the sponsor for it occurred after the initiation of the case.

3. In such a situation, the sponsor may miss the two-month deadline established by law for filing an application for the inclusion of his claim in the register of creditors' claims, in connection with which the claim will be considered declared within the time limit if it is filed within two months from the moment the right of recourse arises.

Thus, the highest court clarified the right of the sponsor to be included in the register of creditors' claims in the order of the usual sequence of creditors, despite the possible formal omission of the general deadline for the inclusion in the register of the debtor's claims (determination No. 305-ES20-15712 of December 28, 2020).


12.01.2021