12/07/2023 Tatiana Tsepkina shared with the readers of AG her view on the bankruptcy case of an individual in which the creditor bank did not agree with the termination of the proceedings, considering that the debtor’s obligation was not repaid in full and challenged the ruling of the court of first instance.
The case has reached a higher instance.
The Supreme Court, in Ruling No. 305-ES21-10270(3) of 26/06/2023, agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance on the existence of grounds for termination of insolvency proceedings and further clarified the procedure for termination of the debtor’s secured obligation to the bank in the event of the collateral left unrealized at auction by the collateral creditor. The Board of the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the District Court.
“The problem of termination of the loan obligation secured by the pledge of residential premises under the “old” loan agreements does not lose relevance. The case under consideration is another confirmation of this. I believe that there is an abuse of the right on the part of the bank, which did not agree with the termination of the bankruptcy procedure and initiated an appeal against a completely legitimate and justified ruling of the court of first instance. Banks, being professional participants in the credit market, as well as other creditors should take note of the new judicial practice and refrain from collecting debt balances. Other behaviour of creditors leads to an unjustified increase in the debt burden and the volume of overdue obligations of borrowers-individuals,” comments Tatiana Tsepkina, Head of the L&P practice “Bankruptcy and Subsidiary Liability”.
