The Supreme Court reminded about the "bonuses" for the mortgagee in case of debtor's bankruptcy
March 01, 2018

Resolution of the AC of the North-West District of December 5, 2017 in case No. A56-62473 / 2014

As it is known from the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and, for example, the Law on LLC, the head is obliged to compensate the company for losses caused by his unreasonable or unfair behavior. This was mentioned by the Supreme Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation and there is a lot of judicial practice in this respect, but it continues to be replenished with examples of the leadership's "mistakes" that cost them heavily. Thus, the AC of the North-Western District considered the situation when the general director of an LLC entered into an agreement with a contractor for the development of a certain concept for the construction of a CHP plant. This concept cost 20 million rubles, but as it turned out, the company was absolutely not needed and did not comply with the construction project, which at that time was already being done by another contractor. In addition, the company paid for the work in advance, and the result was contrary to the agreements. Hiring of a useless contractor was regarded by the courts as unfair behavior of a manager. He was not saved even by the fact that the general meeting of participants (this, by the way, is a common practice) approved the transaction.

Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 02.14.2018 N 305-ЭС17-3098 (2)
The Supreme Court reminded of "bonuses" for the mortgagee in a case of debtor's bankruptcy. After the court accepted an application for declaring a debtor bankrupt, the debtor transferred property to the creditor as compensation for the loan obligation. The insolvency administrator of the debtor believed that this pledged creditor was favored over other creditors. The lower courts supported the bankruptcy trustee, the contract on transfer of compensation was invalidated. The Supreme Court disagreed with them and sent the case for a new review. The court recalled that the pledgee has the right to receive satisfaction of his claims at the expense of the value of the property pledged under the loan obligation, prior to other creditors in terms of 80% of the value of this property. If such claims are satisfied out of order within the framework of these 80%, one cannot assume that the creditor has received preference. The lower courts should not have recognized the withdrawal void as a whole. They should have determined the share of their preference for the disputed transaction.

Letter of the PNP dated 02.03.2018 N 1034 / 03-16-3
It is planned to limit the registration by the notaries of notices of the pledge of movable property on paper by the Federal Notary Chamber as previously clarified the procedure for registering such notifications on the pledge of movable property of the PNP. It is reported that the Order of the Ministry of Justice of Russia dated December 27, 2016 N 313 approved the Forms of registers for the registration of notarial actions, in particular, the Register of registration of notices of pledge of movable property sent in electronic form (Form N 1.2). In the case of submission to the notary of the notice of the pledge of movable property on paper, the notary registers the notice in the Register of registration of notarial actions of the notary (Form N 1.1). After that, the notary translates the notice of the pledge of movable property into electronic form and registers it in the Register of notifications about the pledge of movable property of the unified information system of the notary (UISS). In this case, the notice of the pledge of movable property submitted on paper, as well as extracts from the register of notices of pledge of movable property issued by the notary on paper, are not registered in the Register of notarial actions of UIISN. In order to fairly and evenly distribute the possibility of registering notices of a pledge of movable property among notaries, the Federal Tax Board directs to prepare proposals on limiting the registration of notices of a pledge of movable property on paper. The attention of notaries - members of the notarial chamber of the relevant subject of the Russian Federation to the need to work with electronic documents is also drawn.