Mechel was unable to cancel the penalty in favor of Sberbank

Mechel was unable to cancel the penalty in favor of Sberbank

On the claim of the savings Bank with mining and metallurgical company “Mechel” has collected 10.6 million and $ 6.8 million rubles, said in the Arbitration court of the Moscow district.

MOSCOW, 21 Oct. The arbitration court of the Moscow district on Wednesday upheld the lower level courts, at the suit of Sberbank ruled with mining and metallurgical company “Mechel” 10.6 million and $ 6.8 million rubles, the information on the website of the court.

The district court dismissed the cassation appeal of subsidiaries of Mechel coal company “southern Kuzbass” — for previously entered into legal force decision of arbitration of Moscow.

The plaintiff demanded to repay the debt on two credit line agreements dated 9 October 2012 and two agreements on novation of these contracts from 5 December 2012 and 4 March 2013. The suit was brought against the borrower — the coal company “southern Kuzbass” — and the guarantor — OJSC “Mechel”, JSC “Mechel-mining” and JSC “holding company Yakutugol.

The arbitration of Moscow in may, fully satisfied the claim. At the same time the court of first instance rejected the counterclaim “southern Kuzbass” (the Bank gave him 5 billion and 7.9 billion rubles) on the invalidity of agreements on novation, containing a condition on which at the rate of 50 rubles per dollar, the borrower must pay the loans in dollars, but the rate of 30 rubles per dollar. The Bank demanded the recovery of debt interest and penalties.

According to Mechel, the novation agreements invalid, because the Bank abused the law by having the borrower risks without counter consideration, the agreement violates the balance of interests of the parties, undermine the national currency and are by donation, between legal entities is prohibited. According to the representative of one of the guarantors, the obligations of the borrower simultaneously increased from 13 billion to 21 billion.

The representative of the Bank said counter providing was a decline in rates according to the agreements on novation. Capital arbitrage, rejecting the counterclaim “Mechel”, referred to the principle of freedom of contract and that the existing law does not contain any restrictions on the possibility of signing parties to the agreement on novation under a suspensive condition. The court of appeal in September confirmed this decision.