[ad_1]
The judgment indicates that AT shares the opinion of the cbadationist applicant that the court of appeal did not properly badess the fact that the legal provisions governing relief measures State in favor of commercial companies are relevant to the particular situation. The judgment also made it clear that failure to appeal against this could lead to an offense.
By a previous judgment in 2016, the court had satisfied Kargin's claim against Revertus for the recovery of a term deposit with Parex Bank. Therefore, AT decided to recover Kargin in favor of a fixed term deposit of EUR 15,000,000, EUR 10,687 per lawyer and EUR 18,150 per lawyer.
Reverta's lawyer, Agris Bitāns, explained in advance the changes made to the law prohibits payments to holders of subordinated capital or subordinated liabilities before full repayment of a contribution public.
It has already been reported that on July 1, 2014, amendments to the Business Support Review Act provided for reinvested subordinated contribution or subordinated capital and interest. payments were made only after the full repayment of State aid
The amendments to the Business Support Supervision Act provided that if a commercial company in financial difficulty received badistance under the regulatory provisions regulating commercial activity, it is prohibited to a commercial company to fulfill its subordinated obligations (including prohibiting the repayment of the loan, the calculation, accumulation or payment of interest on these loans, or In turn, the Constitutional Court decided in 2015 that the provision on the suspension of interest payments of a company in financial difficulty and receiving state aid is in accordance with the Basic Law of the state.The case was opened following the request of Kargin's son, Maksim Kargin, and the former owner of the bank, Vi ktor Krasovitsk.
Source link
