The Lawyers’ Newspaper quoted Artur Zurabyan in an article titled “Reducing the loan rate a month before revoking a bank’s license does not constitute harm to creditors”

Source: The Lawyers’ Newspaper

Artur Zurabyan, the head of Dispute Resolution and Mediation Practice and International Arbitration Practice for ART DE LEX, commented on the Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, No. 304-EC15-2412 (19), in which the court put an end to questions about the validity of an addition to a loan agreement that requires the borrower to pay the bank a smaller amount than the original loan agreement.

Commenting on the ruling of the Supreme Court, Artur Zurabyan, an attorney and the head of the Dispute Resolution and International Arbitration Practices at ART DE LEX, considered that, in this case, the court actually defended the interests of an ordinary bank employee, who hardly could have influenced the course of a bank’s orientation, even a month before the revocation of the license. In his opinion, the terms of such a deal do not significantly exceed the usual leeway regarding lending practices that a bank extends to its employees. At the same time, it is a standard practice for banls to provide loans, primarily mortgages, to employees with more favorable terms than to other borrowers.

Mr. Zurabyan noted that, “Undoubtedly, the lack of mutual benefit from the disputed transaction, which, as a general rule, arises upon the withdrawal of assets, is essential for a judicial ruling. That is, there is no evidence that the transaction was profitable for individuals formerly controlling the bank. In addition, at least subjectively, the court likely took into account that challenging the transaction would mean the possibility revising the decision of the court of general jurisdiction that denied the claim. It refused to support the debtor and foreclose the pledged property by satisfying the claim the bank manager had filed against the borrower, based on the original terms of the contract. In that case, a person could lose his or her only home, without any prospects of receiving compensation.”

At the same time, Mr. Zurabyan noted that the approach of the Supreme Court, although fair, is very rare in practice. “In fact, if there were a corporate borrower in the place of the individual, the outcome of the case could be different. With a high degree of probability, the court took into account the subjective issues related to the property status of the borrower and the borrower’s risk of losing what might be his or her only housing.”

Read the complete article at: https://www.advgazeta.ru/novosti/snizhenie-stavki-po-kreditu-za-mesyats-do-otzyva-litsenzii-ban ka-ne-govorit-o-prichinenii-vreda-kreditoram/