Does a Dispute with a Guarantor Transfer to Civil Jurisdiction after Claims against the Debtor Are Left Without Consideration: Conclusion of the Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court
Leaving claims against the debtor without consideration under Part 4 of Article 7 of the Law on Bankruptcy Proceedings due to the creditor submitting monetary claims in the bankruptcy case does not change the legal nature of the dispute and does not affect the determination of jurisdiction over claims against the guarantor.
A dispute regarding the recovery of debt from an individual guarantor is subject to consideration under commercial procedural rules if the guarantee agreement was concluded to secure the performance of an obligation between legal entities. At the same time, transferring claims against the guarantor for consideration in a separate lawsuit does not change the commercial jurisdiction of such a dispute.
This conclusion was reached by the Commercial Cassation Court as part of the Supreme Court in case No. 910/8418/25.
Case Summary
In the reviewed case, a bank filed a lawsuit with the commercial court against a company as the borrower and an individual as the guarantor for joint recovery of the credit debt. During the dispute regarding the company, bankruptcy proceedings were initiated, and the bank submitted the same monetary claims against the debtor within that bankruptcy case.
The commercial court left the claims against the company without consideration under Part 4 of Article 7 of the Law on Bankruptcy Proceedings, since the creditor had already exercised the right to submit the respective claims in the bankruptcy case. Meanwhile, the case materials regarding claims against the individual guarantor were transferred for consideration in a separate lawsuit.
The commercial court, whose position was supported by the appellate court, refused to accept the claim against the guarantor for consideration, reasoning that after the claims against the company (debtor) were left without consideration, the dispute effectively arose between the bank and the individual, and therefore should be considered under civil procedural rules.
Position of the Supreme Court
The Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court disagreed with these conclusions and noted that the decisive factor in determining the jurisdiction of a dispute regarding a guarantee agreement is the subject composition of the parties to the main obligation, not the securing transaction. Since the guarantee agreement was concluded to secure obligations under a credit agreement between legal entities, the dispute regarding the performance of such an agreement falls within the jurisdiction of commercial courts regardless of the fact that the guarantor is an individual without entrepreneur status.
The Supreme Court emphasized that leaving claims against the debtor without consideration under Part 4 of Article 7 of the Law on Bankruptcy Proceedings and the subsequent allocation of claims against the guarantor into a separate proceeding do not change the legal nature of the dispute and are not grounds for changing its jurisdiction. After the debtor exits the dispute, claims against the guarantor are subject to further consideration in a separate lawsuit precisely under commercial procedural rules.
The Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court satisfied the bank’s cassation appeal, canceled the decisions of the lower courts, and referred the case regarding claims against the guarantor back to the commercial court for further consideration.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
