By a\nresolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal, the borrower’s complaint\nagainst the decision of the court of the first instance was left without\nsatisfaction. Earlier, the borrower\nfiled a claim against the Bank – client of “De jure” on the\nrecognition of a transaction to issue a loan invalid and the application of the\nconsequences of invalidity. According to the Plaintiff, the transaction was of\nan imaginary nature, contained enslaving conditions and did not go through the\ncorporate approval procedure. In\nresolving the dispute, the court upheld the position of the representative of\nthe Bank that these circumstances are mutually exclusive. In addition,\nadmissible or relevant evidence were not presented for any of them. The court also applied the legal principle of\nestoppel. The interests of the Bank were\nrepresented by Sergey Bibikov, lawyer of MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe Jure\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\nArbitration Court of the Moscow District upheld the judicial acts of the first\nand second instance on inclusion in the register of claims of the Bank – the Principal\nof “De jure” in the amount of 246 million rubles under a guarantee\nagreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\ncomplainant, the bankruptcy Trustee of the debtor, tried to prove that there\nwere grounds for reviewing the decision made earlier by the court of General\njurisdiction. In particular, it was\nnoted that the term of the contract of guarantee had expired and this issue was\nnot the subject of consideration by the court of General jurisdiction. The\ncourts did not agree with the arguments of the bankruptcy Trustee, pointing to\nthe incorrectly chosen method of protecting the right. The Debtor had to appeal\nthe decision of the court of General jurisdiction in the manner prescribed by\ncivil procedure law, and only in case of cancellation of the decision to try to\nreview the judicial act in the framework of the bankruptcy case. The court of\ncassation upheld the arguments of the Bank and lower courts and left the\njudicial acts of the two instances unchanged. The Bank’s interests were\nrepresented by Andrey Khokhlov, lawyer of MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe Jure\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
By a resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal, the borrower’s complaint against the decision of the court of the first instance was left without satisfaction. Earlier, the borrower filed a claim against the Bank – client of “De jure” on the recognition of a transaction to issue a loan invalid and the application…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[111],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33251"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33251"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33251\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33252,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33251\/revisions\/33252"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33251"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33251"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33251"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}