THE SUPREME COURT SETTLED A DISPUTE ON MUTUAL RESTITUTION IN BANKRUPTCY

The Judicial Board for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered the case on the inclusion of the creditor's claim against the debtor-bank in the register of the creditors’ claims. The financial liability was based on the assignment agreement concluded between the parties, under the terms of which the bank sold the borrower's debt to an individual, and subsequently to a creditor.

At the same time, the payment under the agreement by the assignee was made not from his personal account, but from his father's account. Subsequently, the bank filed for bankruptcy, and the bankruptcy manager achieved the recognition of the assignment agreement as invalid.

In connection with these circumstances, the creditor applied for the inclusion of his restitution claim against the bank in the register of the creditors’ claims, referring to the full payment made under the agreement.

The court of first instance and the court of appeal satisfied the requirements, noting that in the case under consideration, there was a mutual restitution, the parties to which are the participants in the invalidated transaction - a bank and an individual.

However, the district court found the colleagues' conclusions to be incorrect, recalling that the payment under the contract was made for the assignee by his father, which indicates the need to return the disputed amount to him.

However, when considering the case, the judicial board of the Supreme Court sided with the courts of first and appellate instances, indicating that the parties to the contested and invalidated transaction were a bank and an individual, whose father does not appear in the legal relationship.

In addition, the fact that the assignee's father fulfilled financial obligations under the latter's transaction was not disputed, and therefore mutual restitution is only possible between the bank and an individual (determination No. 305-ES19-2386 (11) of November 9, 2020).