“Investohills Vesta” filed a lawsuit against “Belotserkivmaz” to recover almost UAH 1 billion in debt
The economic Court of the Kyiv region is considering Case No. 911/949/20 on the claim of “Investohills Vesta” Financial Company LLC against “Belotserkivmaz” research and production enterprise LLC (manufacturer of agricultural machinery) for debt collection under the loan agreement No. 14/07/00-KL dated 30.01.2007 in the total amount of $13.2 million and UAH 608.4 million.
According to court materials, the primary creditor was “Forum” bank, whose rights of claim were purchased from the Guarantee Fund by “Investohills Vesta” financial company.
The guarantor of LLC “RPE “Belotserkivmaz” was LLC “Kherson machine-building plant”.
At the same time, on 03.08.2021, the Supreme Court opened Cassation proceedings on the Cassation complaints of “Investohills Vesta” and the DGF against the decision of the Northern Economic Court of appeal of 18.05.2021 and the decision of the Economic Court of Kyiv of 06.08.2020 (in case No. 910/3031/20), which satisfied the claim of LLC “RPE Belotserkivmaz” and
– electronic bidding regarding the sale of the rights of claim of “Forum” bank under the mentioned loan agreement No. 14/07/00/KL dated 30.01.2007 and other property rights under these obligations as part of Lot No. F35GL40580 and other property rights under these obligations have been canceled;
– the contract of assignment of the right of claim No. 0002/19/16 of 04.04.2019, which was concluded by the DGF and the financial company “Investohills Vesta” regarding the rights of claim of “Forum” bank to “Belotserkivmaz” research and production enterprise LLC (under the loan agreement No. 14/07/00/KL of 30.01.2007 and related agreements), was declared invalid.
The courts of the first and appellate instances concluded that open electronic bidding was illegal in terms of selling the right of claim to LLC RPE “Belotserkivmaz”, since, according to judges, the DGF sold property rights that were already absent at the time of conclusion of the disputed contract on assignment of rights of claim. Thus, the courts decided that forum bank missed the deadline for filing a claim with claims under the loan agreement No. 14/07/00/KL dated 30.01.2007.
But the financial company “Investohills Vesta”, referring to the legal position set out in the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 17.04.2018 in case No. 522/407/15-C, noted that the expiration of the statute of limitations does not exclude the creditor’s right of claim and is the basis for refusing the claim, provided that one of the parties declared the application of the statute of limitations in court. The complainant also does not recognize that the lender under the loan agreement No. 14/07/00/KL dated 30.01.2007 missed the statute of limitations when filing claims that were considered in cases No. 7/037-12, No. 5024/533/2012 on foreclosure on the subject of mortgage and in case No. 911/4806/14 on recovery of credit debt.
In addition, “Investohills Vesta” noted that the decision in case No. 911/4724/13 of 05.02.2014, which satisfied the bank’s claims against LLC RPE “Belotserkivmaz” and LLC RPE “Kherson machine-building plant” on invalidating the agreement concluded between the defendants, established that the obligations under the loan agreement No. 14/07/00/KL of 30.01.2007 were not terminated.
On 12 October 2021 the Supreme Court suspended the proceedings in case no.910/3031/20 pending the outcome of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court’s examination of case no. 910/12525/20, which would examine the possibility of challenging transactions involving the sale of property by an interested person who was not a party to such transaction.