1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Deposit Guarantee Fund of Individuals against former members of the bank’s credit committee for joint and several compensation for losses caused to the bank as a result of their decisions to issue loans without adequate collateral and to acquire illiquid securities.
2. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances because they did not take into account the previous instructions of the Supreme Court, did not fully examine the evidence provided by the Fund, and did not provide an adequate legal assessment of the defendants’ actions regarding their compliance with fiduciary duties. The court emphasized that the defendants, as members of the credit committee, should have acted in the interests of the bank, in good faith and reasonably, and their decisions should not have been unduly risky. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the presumption of guilt of the defendants and did not examine whether they took all possible measures to prevent losses to the bank. The court pointed out the need to examine the financial statements of counterparties, loan agreements, securities purchase and sale agreements, and other evidence provided by the Fund. The Court departed from the principle that the plaintiff must prove the fictitious nature of the securities or the fictitious nature of the issuer/counterparty. It is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove that in the presence of similar/identical features that should have been detected by the defendants during proper verification and their decision-making based on sufficient information, the defendants’ decisions to purchase securities or use them as collateral for loans were unreasonably risky, obviously contrary to the interests of the bank, its depositors and creditors.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
