THE COURT DEFENDED THE RIGHTS OF AN EQUITY PARTICIPANT IN A DISPUTE WITH A BANKRUPT

An equity participation agreement was concluded between the citizen and the developer, the rights under which were subsequently transferred to the company. The developer was declared bankrupt, and his manager appealed to the Federal Register, and then to the court (case no. A40-192752/21), demanding registration of termination of the specified contract.

The claim was motivated by the fact that the debtor had declared a unilateral refusal to fulfill obligations under the equity participation agreement in connection with the non-payment of funds by the company.

At the same time, the Rosreestr, refusing to register the termination of the contract, referred to the inconsistency of information about the equity participant (the company was renamed).

The courts of three instances recognized the refusal of Rosreestr illegal, obliging to make changes to the EGRN. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation canceled the judicial acts and sent the case for a new hearing, stating the following:

"Recognizing the refusal illegal on formal grounds in the form of inconsistency of information about the name, the courts did not take into account that the company provided information about payment under the disputed contract, which is why the developer had no grounds for unilateral refusal to fulfill obligations."

At the same time, as the Supreme Court pointed out, when considering this dispute, the courts needed to check not only the circumstances cited, but also to establish the grounds for the company's unilateral refusal of the contract of participation in shared construction if there are relevant objections of the participant of shared construction involved in the case. However, the arguments, as well as the evidence of the company, which were attached to the case materials, were not given a legal assessment by the courts

Photo: Freepik