LITIGATION PARALLEL TO BANKRUPTCY ON REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT TO THE PURCHASED REAL ESTATE FROM A LEGAL PERSON, AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A RECOGNIZED BANKRUPT.

This litigation was based on an unusual banking "scheme": an investor organization took out a bank loan to invest in the construction of apartments in a resort area, and an affiliated developer organization that owns a land plot acted as a mortgagor with a pledge in the form of apartments - which, in this case, the developer has the right to sell after putting them into operation and registering himself as the owner. The developer pledged to withdraw the deposit after the full payment of the apartments. These funds will then go to repaying the loan of the investor organization. However, the buyer did not possess any contract that connected the other three participants (bank, investor organization, and construction). This meant that the funds were impossible to trace back to the bank.

And when the pre-bankruptcy state of the developer organization and the investor organization became obvious, the bank revoked its written consent to remove the collateral from a number of apartments, which had already been sent to the State real estate register, a week later.

Our company, through a combined participation in three processes in parallel, according to a pre-developed strategy, was able to achieve the "separation" of paid apartments from the bankruptcy estate:

• The foreclosure process initiated by the bank on the mortgaged apartments, where it was possible to remove the collateral and achieve the bank's refusal from part of the claims (in terms of paid apartments);

• Process for the recognition of ownership of the paid apartment with the obligation of the seller to register the transfer of title;

• The process of including the bank as a collateral lender in the register of creditors of the developer organization as part of its bankruptcy procedure, where it was possible to reduce the bank's claims by the amount of the paid apartments.

Not all processes went smoothly: there were also refusal decisions of the courts, and the return of cases for new consideration, and disputes over jurisdiction.

But as a result, the ownership of the paid apartment was registered with the buyer on the basis of the relevant court decision.