Chuikova Svetlana
LawyerIn detail, the Deposit insurance Agency (DIA) failed to dispute the validity of the exchange of promissory notes between the bankrupt Sibneftebank and the construction company "Brusnika. Tyumen" the amount of which is more than 155 million rubles. The Arbitration court of West Siberian district upheld the decisions of lower court authorities, which rejected the claim of the DIA. Experts believe that in the case there are circumstances that are usually qualified by the courts as unfair actions to withdraw the assets of the debtor.
DIA as the bankruptcy Trustee of Sibneftebank in the lawsuit demanded to invalidate the exchange contract of promissory notes of LLC "Partner-invest" (from October 2018 — "Brusnika. Tyumen") and securities of LLC "Agency of business decisions "perfect". According to the materials of the case, in September 2012 Sibneftebank offered the construction company to conclude a barter deal of the exchange of 24 bills for a total amount of 155 million rubles. In January 2015, the developer accepted the offer by transferring securities through a notary Deposit. After the license was revoked from the Bank in June 2015, the Bank was brought into a bankruptcy Trustee refused to comply the terms of the transaction and demanded to recognize it as invalid. The representative of the DIA argued the decision by the fact that the transaction "is not equal and its execution could harm the creditors of the Bank." This was the reason for legal proceedings between the parties to the transaction.
Sibneftebank is one of the oldest and largest banks in the Tyumen region, registered in August 1990. In June 2015, the Central Bank revoked its license for "reducing capital adequacy ratios below 2%" and carrying out a high-risk policy on placing money in low-quality assets. According to the DIA, today's cash balance is more than 84.5 million RUB., the Bank paid creditors more than 1.1 billion rubles, the amount of stated requirements was of about RUB 1.9 bln.
The arbitration court of the Tyumen region in July 2015 ordered the Bank to transfer the promissory notes to "Brusnika. Tyumen.». Simultaneously the court appealed to the Central Bank's with a claim for liquidation of the Bank. In January, 2016 the Bank was declared bankrupt and was introduced into the bankruptcy procedure. Then the DIA — liquidator of Sibneftebank refused to fulfill the terms of the contract of exchange of promissory notes, referring to the Federal law "On insolvency (bankruptcy)".
In June 2016, the arbitration court of the Tyumen region again denied to satisfy the claim of the developer, who asked to invalidate the Bank's refusal to execute the exchange agreement. "The execution of the exchange of promissory notes transaction will entail losses for Sibneftebank, which are evinced because of the reduction of the bankruptcy assets formed due to the revenue of money as a result of the presentation of promissory notes for payment," the court decision said. However, in November 2016, the appellate court revoked this decision, considering "the loss-making of the transaction is an insufficient circumstance for the rejection of the claim of the developer.
In may 2018, the DIA filed a lawsuit against "Brusnika. Tyumen" in order to invalidate the transaction. However, the arbitration court of the Tyumen region rejected the claims of the bankruptcy Trustee. The decision was supported by the appellate and cassation autthorities. The DIA declined to comment.
Experts believe that the dispute between Sibneftebank and the construction company looks suspicious because of the promissory notesl schemes. "There are many circumstances in the case, which are usually qualified by the courts as unfair actions to withdraw the assets of the bankrupt debtor. The fact that almost two and a half years have passed between the offer of the Bank with the offer to exchange promissory notes for 155 million rubles and the acceptance, already looks suspicious," said Sergey Levichev, partner of the Pavlova & partners law firm.
Source: www.kommersant.ru
Ирина Кошечкина
Юрист