The principal, who worked in the past as Chairman of the Bank’s board, appealed to lawyers on the fact of non-payment to him additional compensation in the amount of 5 000 000 rubles under the Supplemental Agreement to the Employment contract upon dismissal.

The grounds for refusing to pay additional compensation are those circumstances that, despite the assurances and guarantees provided for by the Supplemental Agreement, the asset quality of the Employer and its affiliate has significantly deteriorated during the period when the Employee performed the duties of the Chairman of the Bank’s board.

In addition, the Bank referred to the circumstances that the Bank knew that the Employee speaks at public events, forums, and also participates in the implementation of projects to build a factoring business and advises on the construction of a factoring business, which was prohibited to him in accordance with the Supplementary Agreement to the employment contract.  In this regard, the Bank concluded that the Employee did not comply with the terms of the Supplemental Agreement, and, accordingly, that the Bank did not have the obligation to pay additional compensation as provided for in the Supplemental Agreement.

At the same time, the Bank’s refusal to pay compensation did not contain any evidence that the Employee had not fulfilled its obligations.

 The Plaintiff, through a lawyer, appealed to the Bank and subsequently filed a claim to Simonovsky District Court of Moscow to recover additional compensation.

The Bank objected to the claims of the Employee and asked to completely refuse them.

During the trial, the Plaintiff’s lawyers filed petitions to oblige the Defendant to provide documentation substantiating the Defendant’s objections, and in parallel to send judicial requests to the Central Bank, namely, to provide:

— Information on the implementation and / or availability of reserve funds in the case of debt of the Bank’s client companies, with provision of a transcript of the reserve – on the date of dismissal of the employee and on the date of fulfillment of the Bank’s obligation to pay additional compensation.

— Information to which quality category loans were assigned on these companies for the indicated 2 dates according to section 1.7. of Provision of Bank of Russia of March 26, 2004 N 254-P  and section 1.7 of Provision of Bank of Russia of June 28, 2017 N 590-P “On the Procedure for Formation by Credit Institutions of Reserves for Possible Losses on Loans, Loans and Equivalent Debts to It”.

— Materials for the Risk Management Committee regarding the named organizations, namely: report on the negotiations held, conclusion of the credit analyst service; financial risk analysis management report; decision to declare the asset problematic.

— Regulations for factoring customer service.

 — Regulation on the Risk Management Committee and the Rules of its work.

 — Defendant’s internal local regulatory acts, regulating the procedure for assigning customers to different categories of asset quality.

— Decision of the Risk Management Committee on classifying the debts of these companies as distressed assets.

— Documents confirming the recognition of loan debt from these companies to the Bank as of the date of signing the Supplemental Agreement to the employment contract.

— Documents confirming a decrease in the quality of the assets of these organizations for the period from the date of dismissal of the employee to the date of fulfillment of the Bank’s obligation to pay additional compensation.

— Regulation on the analysis of the financial condition of customers before concluding contracts.

— The job description of the Chairman of the Management Board of the Bank, with which the employee was acquainted, acting for the period the Plaintiff occupies the specified position.

— It was the statement by the Plaintiff’s lawyers of these petitions that prompted the Bank to offer our Principal a settlement agreement, the terms of which suit him.

As part of the trial between the Plaintiff (Principal) and the Defendant (Bank), an amicable agreement was concluded to pay compensation to the Plaintiff in the amount of 3,000,000 Rubles, which was executed by the Defendant within two days from the date of the court’s Ruling on the approval of the settlement agreement.

N.V. Filippov and T.A.Bogomolova, lawyers of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” took part in development of a legal position and representation of interests of the Principal in court.