RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
02/05/2024
Thursday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
2 May 
1955 The caste-based discrimination was prohibited in India.
1955 The caste-based discrimination was prohibited in India.
1703 The first Russian gymnasium was founded in Moscow.
1703 The first Russian gymnasium was founded in Moscow.
1509 The Spaniards founded the city of San Juan, now Puerto Rico.
1509 The Spaniards founded the city of San Juan, now Puerto Rico.
2 May
1955 The caste-based discrimination was prohibited in India.
1955 The caste-based discrimination was prohibited in India.
1703 The first Russian gymnasium was founded in Moscow.
1703 The first Russian gymnasium was founded in Moscow.
1509 The Spaniards founded the city of San Juan, now Puerto Rico.
1509 The Spaniards founded the city of San Juan, now Puerto Rico.
THE SUPREME COURT RESOLVED THE DISPUTE ON THE RETURN OF A PREFERENTIAL LOAN DURING THE REORGANIZATION OF A LEGAL ENTITY
In 2020, a credit line for 2.7 million rubles was opened for the Dimark Profi medical center in Sberbank in order to restore the organization's operability. Repayment was supposed to take place from April to June 2021.
The rate before the repayment period on the credit line was 2% per annum, at the repayment stage – 15%. The agreement provided for the possibility of writing off the loan debt subject to a number of conditions, among which were the following:
"During the observation period, the number of employees of the borrower at the end of each reporting month should be at least 80% of the number of its employees as of 01.06.2020.
" Such a condition is also provided for in Government Decree No. 696 of 16.05.2020. It sets out the rules for granting subsidies to banks to compensate for the income they have not received on loans issued for the resumption of business operations in 2020. According to the rules, the number of employees is determined through the service of the Federal Tax Service (FTS).
In the winter of 2021, the borrower merged with Dimark Trauma Center, as a result of which a new legal entity appeared – MC Dimark Profi, which Sberbank was notified about. The latter, in a reply letter, said that the terms of the loan would not change from this in any way. However, at the end of March, Dimark Profi was informed that next month the contract will be transferred to the repayment period, at which the rate will be 15%. Referring to information from the FTS service, Sberbank stated that the borrower did not comply with paragraph 12 of Resolution No. 696. The lender also indicated that during the reorganization period, the borrower stopped his work.
Dimark Profi did not agree with the changes to the contract and appealed to the court. However, three instances refused to satisfy his claims, citing a violation by the plaintiff of the rules of Resolution No. 696 (case No. A19-8008/2021).
Then the borrower decided to defend his rights and interests in the Supreme Court. In the complaint, the plaintiff pointed out that in Dimark Trauma Center, with which the borrower merged, there was only one employee in the person of the director. He was the head of the plaintiff. In this regard, the number of employees remained above 90%, which was enough to maintain the credit benefit. The bank's argument about the termination of the plaintiff's work is thus refuted by the tax reporting. The applicant also noted that the loan was issued to preserve the possibility of conducting and developing a business with the preservation of jobs. After the reorganization, the company met these criteria.
The Supreme Court listened to the arguments of the cassation appeal, annulled the judicial acts of the lower courts and sent the dispute for a new consideration.
The rate before the repayment period on the credit line was 2% per annum, at the repayment stage – 15%. The agreement provided for the possibility of writing off the loan debt subject to a number of conditions, among which were the following:
"During the observation period, the number of employees of the borrower at the end of each reporting month should be at least 80% of the number of its employees as of 01.06.2020.
" Such a condition is also provided for in Government Decree No. 696 of 16.05.2020. It sets out the rules for granting subsidies to banks to compensate for the income they have not received on loans issued for the resumption of business operations in 2020. According to the rules, the number of employees is determined through the service of the Federal Tax Service (FTS).
In the winter of 2021, the borrower merged with Dimark Trauma Center, as a result of which a new legal entity appeared – MC Dimark Profi, which Sberbank was notified about. The latter, in a reply letter, said that the terms of the loan would not change from this in any way. However, at the end of March, Dimark Profi was informed that next month the contract will be transferred to the repayment period, at which the rate will be 15%. Referring to information from the FTS service, Sberbank stated that the borrower did not comply with paragraph 12 of Resolution No. 696. The lender also indicated that during the reorganization period, the borrower stopped his work.
Dimark Profi did not agree with the changes to the contract and appealed to the court. However, three instances refused to satisfy his claims, citing a violation by the plaintiff of the rules of Resolution No. 696 (case No. A19-8008/2021).
Then the borrower decided to defend his rights and interests in the Supreme Court. In the complaint, the plaintiff pointed out that in Dimark Trauma Center, with which the borrower merged, there was only one employee in the person of the director. He was the head of the plaintiff. In this regard, the number of employees remained above 90%, which was enough to maintain the credit benefit. The bank's argument about the termination of the plaintiff's work is thus refuted by the tax reporting. The applicant also noted that the loan was issued to preserve the possibility of conducting and developing a business with the preservation of jobs. After the reorganization, the company met these criteria.
The Supreme Court listened to the arguments of the cassation appeal, annulled the judicial acts of the lower courts and sent the dispute for a new consideration.
14.11.2023
