PLC Global Finance update for March 2011: Russian Federation | Practical Law

PLC Global Finance update for March 2011: Russian Federation | Practical Law

The Russian Federation update for March 2011 for the PLC Global Finance multi-jurisdictional monthly e-mail.

PLC Global Finance update for March 2011: Russian Federation

Practical Law UK Articles 3-505-3567 (Approx. 9 pages)

PLC Global Finance update for March 2011: Russian Federation

by White & Case LLP
Published on 31 Mar 2011Russian Federation
The Russian Federation update for March 2011 for the PLC Global Finance multi-jurisdictional monthly e-mail.

Increased amount of mandatory reserves to be deposited by banks with the Central Bank

On 25 February 2011, the Central Bank issued Directive No. 2582-U regarding mandatory reserves required for various obligations of credit organisations.
The Directive entered into force on 25 February 2011. According to the Directive, starting from 1 March 2011 mandatory reserves for a credit organisation's obligations (in rubles or foreign currencies) are as follows:
  • Under obligations to non-resident legal entities - 4.5%.
  • Under obligations to individuals – 3.5%.
  • Under other obligations – 3.5%.

The Central Bank has increased the refinancing rate to 8%

On 25 February 2011, the Central Bank issued Directive No. 2583-U increasing the refinancing rate. The Directive entered into force on 25 February 2011. The Central Bank increased the refinancing rate from 7.75% to 8% per annum. The new rate applies as of 28 February 2011. The Central Bank sets the refinancing rate for its financing of commercial banks. The rate is also used for calculating interest on commercial loans (if the rate is not specified in an agreement), tax payments and in other cases provided by law.

Special update on clarifications of the Supreme Commercial Court on pledges and mortgages

On 17 February 2011, the Plenum of the Supreme Commercial Court adopted Resolution No. 10 "On Certain Issues Relating to Application of Legislation on Pledge (Mortgage)."

General issues relating to pledges and mortgages

General (contents and form of security agreements, changes in secured debt):
  • Absence of provisions on interest rate. If a pledge (mortgage) agreement fails to specify the amount of and/or procedure for payment of loan interest, then the secured claim is deemed limited to the principal debt.
  • When notarisation is not needed. Pledge (mortgage) agreements with respect to aircraft, sea and river vessels, rolling stock and spacecraft do not need to be notarised.
  • Changes in the secured obligation. Changes in the amount or term of a secured obligation as described in a pledge (mortgage) agreement (for example; change of the interest rate or the loan maturity date) shall not entail termination of security. For example, if the amount of a secured principal debt is increased, the pledge shall secure the debt in the amount which existed prior to such increase, unless the parties have previously agreed that the secured debt сould be increased by a specified amount.

Mortgage specific issues

  • Division or merger of a land plot. In case of a division, merger of or allotment from a mortgaged land plot(s), the mortgage will remain in effect with respect to newly formed land plots unless the parties agree otherwise. State registration of mortgage with respect to newly formed land plots shall be performed by the registrar on its own and the filing of a separate application for registration is not needed.
  • When mortgage of a land plot or rights thereto is not needed. The law provides that a building may be mortgaged only together with the underlying land plot or lease rights thereto. According to the clarifications, this rule does not apply in case of:
    • mortgage of non-residential premises rather than the whole building (upon enforcement the purchaser will acquire the mortgagor's right to share in the common title to the relevant building);
    • mortgage of a building located on a land plot which may not be mortgaged due to certain statutory restrictions (the purchaser of such building will acquire the same right to use the land plot as was enjoyed by the mortgagor of the building).
  • Assignment of a secured claim. If a creditor assigns its claims secured by a mortgage to a third party, the new creditor may only claim mortgage enforcement after the transfer of the mortgage rights to it is registered.

Issues related to out-of-court enforcement

  • When extra-judicial enforcement is not allowed. Russian law provides that where a pledge or mortgage was granted by an individual and the conclusion of a security agreement required a third party's consent, such security may only be enforced through a judicial procedure. The Court clarified that an out-of-court enforcement (OE) option is therefore not available for:
    • a pledge of property in common ownership granted by an individual, including an individual entrepreneur (for example; property in common ownership of spouses);
    • a pledge of a participation interest granted by an individual participant to a non-participant (because such pledge requires the other participants' consent);
    • a pledge (mortgage) of land lease rights by an individual if it required the landlord's consent (rather than just notification) and there are no buildings on the land plot.
  • Form and registration of an agreement on OE. If an agreement on OE is concluded as a separate document (rather than included in a security agreement), it should be in the same form as the security agreement and should be registered if the latter is itself subject to state registration. In particular, an agreement on OE of a mortgage executed as a separate document is subject to state registration.
  • Unlawful levy of execution. If a pledgeholder levies execution unlawfully (for example; if an agreement on OE is invalid), the pledgor (mortgagor) may either:
    • recover the secured property from the purchaser or the pledgeholder who kept it (and in this case the pledgeholder will also need to compensate the pledgor's (mortgagor's) expenses related to the "restoration of the right infringed upon");
    • or claim the full amount of damages from the pledgeholder, including the value of the secured property.
  • Pledgor's consent for OE. Russian law differentiates between the "pledgor's consent for OE" and an "agreement on OE." A notarised consent to the OE, which is required by law for pledges if the pledgor is an individual and for all mortgages,
    • may be granted either before or after a security agreement is made;
    • does not need to be notarised if a relevant agreement on OE is notarised;
    • may not be revoked by the pledgor (mortgagor) and may not be challenged separately from the agreement on OE.
  • Resort to court despite the existence of an agreement on OE. If a pledgeholder goes to court to enforce security despite the existence of an agreement on OE then, irrespective of the outcome of the case, the pledgeholder shall bear all the relevant court expenses. This will not be the case if:
    • the pledgholder proves that OE appeared to be unsuccessful or is impossible;
    • the parties have agreed upon the possibility of both judicial and extra-judicial enforcement.
    In addition, the pledgeholder who goes to court despite an agreement on OE may ask the court either that the pledged property be realised according to the procedure established for judicial enforcement, or transferred to it for further realisation in accordance with the agreement on OE.
  • Old security agreement and new agreement on OE. The parties may conclude an agreement on OE even if the pledge (mortgage) agreement was made before Federal Law No. 306-FZ, dated 30 December 2008, entered into force.

Levy of execution on pledged (mortgaged) property

Enforcement if the pledgor disposes of the secured property (sells it, grants a subsequent pledge):
  • When pledged movable property is sold. If a pledgor disposes of pledged movable property (for example; sells it) without the pledgeholder's consent, the pledgeholder may not challenge the disposal, rather it may accelerate the secured debt and levy execution on the pledged property.
  • When mortgaged immovable property is sold. The above approach applies to mortgages of immovable property save for cases when a mortgagor alienates mortgaged property without the mortgageholder's consent, or grants a subsequent mortgage in breach of a prohibition established in the prior one. In these cases the mortgageholder is entitled to challenge the disposal.
  • Simultaneous levy of execution by a prior and a subsequent pledgeholder. If a prior and a subsequent pledgeholder wish to levy execution on the pledged (mortgaged) property in an extra judicial procedure simultaneously, they are to send a joint enforcement notice to the pledgor (mortgagor).
  • Bona fide purchaser of pledged movable property and enforcement. A pledgeholder may not levy execution on pledged movable property if it was sold by the pledgor to a third party who did not know and could not have known that the property was subject to pledge.

Specific terms of pledge (mortgage) agreements affecting enforcement

  • Security for claims to restitution when secured obligation is invalid. The parties may agree that the pledge (mortgage) secures not only claims arising out of an agreement (for example; on loan repayment and payment of interest), but also claims to restitution if the agreement turns out to be invalid.
  • Levy of execution on part of secured property. If a pledge (mortgage) agreement indicates the total value of several pledged (mortgaged) items and does not indicate the values of those separate items, then execution shall be levied on all the secured property and it shall only be realised as a whole. Partial levy of execution will only be possible if the:
    • the pledgor (mortgagor) proves that the partial sale proceeds will suffice to satisfy the secured debt in full;
    • there are documents confirming the market price of the relevant separate items of secured property. In addition, if the auction for the sale of the pledged property as a whole fails because only one participant showed up or no one increased the starting sale price, the pledgor or the pledgeholder may apply to the court and ask that the pledged property be sold in parts.

Realisation of pledged (mortgaged) property

  • Methods of realisation when immovable property is mortgaged. The Court pointed out that the methods of realisation of the mortgaged property in case of OE are as follows:
    • sale at an open or closed auction;
    • acquisition of the mortgaged property by the mortgageholder for itself or for a third party.
  • Only one realisation method in an agreement on OE of mortgage. An agreement on OE of mortgage may indicate only one of these methods. If no such method is indicated or several methods are indicated, then the agreement on OE is deemed "non-concluded" and thus the mortgage may be enforced through a judicial procedure only.
  • Acquisition of mortgaged property by the mortgageholder. The law does not allow the mortgageholder to acquire the mortgaged property if the mortgaged property consists of a land plot. The Court clarified that this restriction does not apply to mortgage of a land plot (land lease rights) occupied with a building mortgaged to the same mortgageholder.

Methods of realisation of pledged movable property

  • Extra-judicial enforcement of pledges of movable property. The law provides that in case of OE, the pledged property is to be realised through an auction or sale under a commission agreement concluded by the pledgeholder. If a pledge agreement is concluded among legal entities and/or individual entrepreneurs, they may agree that the property will be acquired by the pledgeholder or sold, including by a commission agent, without an auction.
  • Involvement of a commission agent and sale at an auction. The Court pointed out that in the former case the involvement of a commission agent means that the pledged property shall be sold by the commission agent at an auction, whereas in the latter case (for example; where the pledge agreement is among legal entities and/or individual entrepreneurs), the pledged property shall be sold by the commission agent without an auction.
  • Methods of realisation when movable property is pledged. The Court further summed up that the methods of realisation of pledged movable property in case of OE are therefore as follows:
    • sale by the pledgeholder at an open or closed auction;
    • sale at an open or closed auction organised by a commission agent;
    • sale of traded securities on a stock exchange;
    • acquisition of the pledged property by the pledgeholder;
    • sale by the pledgeholder without an auction;
    • sale by the commission agent without an auction.
  • Several realisation methods in an agreement on OE of pledge of movable property. As opposed to an agreement on OE of a mortgage, an agreement on OE of a pledge of movable property may contain several methods of realisation, and in that case it is the pledgor (rather than the pledgeholder) who will be able to choose a particular method at its discretion, unless agreed otherwise. If no such method is indicated, then the pledged property shall be sold by the pledgeholder at an open auction (which may be organised by a commission agent), or on a stock exchange if traded securities are pledged.

Term of realisation, pledgeholder's authority

  • Pledgor's rights when realisation is delayed. The law provides that pledged movable property shall be realised within the term agreed upon by the parties or, if none is agreed, within a reasonable term. The Court clarified that if pledged property is realised after the expiry of the term for its realisation, the pledgor may claim from the pledgeholder damages incurred due to the late realisation (for example, the amount of interest accrued after the term expired and withheld by the pledgeholder from the sale proceeds). This approach shall also apply to a mortgage if the parties agreed upon a certain term for realisation in an agreement on OE.
  • Pledgeholder's authority to make transactions in its own name. The statutory rule allowing the pledgeholder to conclude all the transactions required for realisation of pledged property in its own name shall apply to OE realisation with any of the methods mentioned above.

Transfer of title to secured property

  • The need for possession of pledged movable property. The acquisition of pledged movable property by the pledgeholder or its sale to a third party without an auction is only possible if the pledgeholder possesses the pledged property. Thus, the pledgeholder or the purchaser, as applicable, shall only obtain title to the pledged property provided it obtains possession of such property.
  • Transfer of title to mortgaged property. If a mortgageholder wishes to acquire mortgaged property for itself or for a third party, it does not need to conclude a separate sale-purchase contract with the mortgagor. To register the transfer to title to the mortgaged property the mortgageholder shall submit to the registrar an application for state registration (no mortgagor's application is needed) together with:
    • documents evidencing the lawfulness of enforcement (for example; a mortgage agreement with a notary's executive endorsement on it);
    • enforcement notice;
    • a declaration (notice) on acquisition of the mortgaged property for itself or for a third party (and such declaration shall indicate the price at which the property is acquired), as well as;
    • evidence that the mortgagor has received these documents. If mortgaged property is acquired by the mortgageholder for a third party, the application for state registration of the transfer of title shall be submitted both by the mortgagor and by that third party acquiring title.
  • Transfer of title to pledged rights. If the pledgeholder acquires pledged rights, such rights shall be transferred to the pledgeholder at the moment of receipt by the pledgor of the pledgeholder's declaration (notice) on retaining such rights for itself, provided the prior enforcement notice was properly sent to the pledgor.

Price of secured property

  • OE without an auction to be done at the market value determined by an appraiser. Pledged property shall be acquired by the pledgeholder or sold to a third party without an auction at its market price to be determined by an independent appraiser.
  • Challenging of enforcement in case of breaches. If the rules on appraisal of the pledged (mortgaged) property are violated in the course of its OE realisation without an auction, the realisation may be challenged by an interested person. Such transaction shall be found invalid if it is proved that the purchaser knew or should have known that the rules on appraisal were breached. In addition, the pledgor (mortgagor) is entitled to claim damages from the pledgeholder irrespective of whether the realisation transaction is challenged or not.
  • Starting sale price at an auction – no less than 80% of the price determined by appraiser. Where the law requires engagement of an independent appraiser for OE realisation, the starting sale price of the pledged property at the auction may not be less than 80% of the market price determined by an independent appraiser.
  • Realisation of receivables. In case of extra-judicial realisation of pledged receivables, they are subject to independent appraisal both in case of sale at an auction and acquisition by the pledgeholder or sale without an auction.
  • When the auction fails. If an auction for the sale of pledged property fails because only one participant showed up or no one increased the starting sale price, the pledgor or the pledgeholder may apply to a court and ask that the starting price be reduced. In this case, the claimant must prove that the market price of the pledged property significantly decreased after the entry into force of the decision on the levy of execution.

Special update on clearing and netting in Russia

On 7 February 2011, following their approval by the Russian Parliament, the President of the Russian Federation signed into law the Clearing Law and the Amending Law. The Clearing Law establishes a unified legal framework for clearing activities in Russia and is expected to contribute significantly to the development of the Russian financial market. The Amending Law, among other things, introduces into Russian bankruptcy laws the possibility of close-out (liquidation) netting under derivative, repo and certain other transactions.

The Clearing Law: Background to the introduction of the Clearing Law

Although certain fragmentary regulation of clearing existed in Russia, including references to clearing in the Russian Tax Code, the Law on the Central Bank of Russia and the Securities Market Law, it would be fair to say that before the introduction of the Clearing Law, clearing activities were never subject to specific comprehensive statutory regulation in Russia.
The Clearing Law has been prepared as a major follow-up on the "Strategy for the Development of the Russian Financial Markets until 2020" adopted by the Russian Government in December 2008. The main idea and goal of the Clearing Law is further development of a competitive risk management system for Russian market players.

Principal provisions of the Clearing Law

Key definitions
The Clearing Law defines "clearing" as "determination of due obligations arising out of agreements, including through the netting of such obligations, and preparation of documents (information) for the termination or performance of such obligations" and "clearing activities", as "the rendering of clearing services in accordance with clearing rules adopted by a clearing organisation and registered in accordance with the established procedure with the federal state regulator in the securities market sphere."
The Clearing Law also introduces such terms as the "clearing participant" (being the recipient of clearing services from a clearing organisation under a clearing services agreement), "netting" (full or partial termination of obligations admitted to clearing by way of a set-off or otherwise in accordance with the clearing rules), and "central counterparty" (a legal entity which complies with the respective requirements of the Clearing Law and is a party to all the agreements included in the clearing pool).

The Clearing organisations

In accordance with the Clearing Law, only a Russian commercial legal entity may perform the functions of a clearing organisation and a central counterparty. The Clearing Law lists a number of requirements for qualification as a clearing organisation. Such requirements include, among others:
  • The requirements to the minimum amount of such organisation's own funds (set at RUB100 million).
  • The requirements to the founders, management bodies and employees of such organisation.
  • Certain other internal requirements (such as the need to set up an effective internal control system).
A clearing organisation is prohibited from:
  • Carrying on production, insurance and trading activities, as well as activities connected with the trust management of joint stock investment funds, mutual funds and non-public pension funds.
  • Being a registrar, a non-public pension fund, a joint stock investment fund, or a special depositary of joint stock investment funds, mutual funds and non-public pension funds. The Clearing Law also lists a number of limitations related to practices of combining clearing activities with broker, dealer and securities management activities, as well as activities related to the organisation of trading on the securities market.
Clearing activities are subject to licensing requirements in the Russian Federation. Registration of clearing organisations and issue/ revocation of relevant licenses shall be effected by the Federal Service for Financial Markets of the Russian Federation (the FSFM).
Clearing organisations are also required to make proper disclosure of their activities in accordance with the Clearing Law (in particular, a clearing organisation is required to disclose its clearing rules, foundation documents and annual reports, including audit reports in relation to its financial statements).

Clearing security

The Clearing Law provides for a number of risk management tools for ensuring effective operation of the clearing system. In particular, one of the innovations under the Clearing Law is the concept of clearing security used to secure the obligations of clearing participants. Clearing security may be individual (securing the respective obligations of specific clearing participants) and/or collective (securing the obligations of any clearing participant through the establishment by a clearing organisation of a special security (guarantee) fund). Clearing security may include money (rubles or foreign currencies), securities and other property listed in respective statutory regulations, save for pledged property.

The Amending Law: General overview of the Amending Law

In connection with the enactment of the Clearing Law, the Amending Law introduced respective amendments to a number of laws, including the Securities Market Law, the Law on Banks and Banking, the Bankruptcy Law, the Credit Organisations Bankruptcy Law and certain others.
One of the major Russian legislative innovations introduced by the Clearing Law and the Amending Law is the concept of netting. Russian law was generally not familiar with the concept of netting before the introduction of the laws mentioned above. As a result, Russian courts considered netting as a form of set-off (being the closest Russian law equivalent), which was definitely a problem in the context of insolvency of Russian entities. This is because Russian insolvency laws generally prohibited set-off in the course of insolvency proceedings, and granted the liquidator rights to repudiate certain transactions with a performance date not yet due (transactions unprofitable for the insolvent party).

Introduction of netting in Russia

In accordance with the Amending Law, close-out netting arrangements will be recognised in relation to repo transactions, derivative instruments or other transactions dealing with securities or foreign currencies and entered into between eligible counterparties under eligible documentation.
The amended Bankruptcy Law provides that obligations of parties under multiple transactions governed by a single master agreement may be terminated and that a single cash payment obligation (except any potentially applicable fines/penalties and lost profits) may be payable pursuant to the master agreement by one party to the other. To be eligible for such netting, the respective transactions need to be entered into prior to:
  • The commencement of administration.
  • The ruling of a commercial court to introduce any bankruptcy procedure.
  • The revocation of a banking license (if applicable). The Bankruptcy Law also effectively prohibits "cherry-picking" in the context of bankruptcy proceedings, (the bankruptcy administrator now may refuse to perform only all of the eligible financial transactions rather than some of the financial transactions).
In accordance with the amendments to the Bankruptcy Law, the list of eligible counterparties includes:
  • Russian banks and professional securities market participants (brokers, dealers, custodians).
  • The Central Bank of Russia.
  • Non-Russian banks and professional securities market participants incorporated in an OECD/FATF/MONEYVAL jurisdiction, or in a country whose securities market regulator or similar body has entered into a cooperation agreement with the FSFM.
  • Non-Russian central (national) banks from an eligible jurisdiction or an eligible country.
  • International financial institutions (IFC, EBRD, World Bank).
  • Other Russian entities.
  • The Russian Federation, its regions and municipalities.
  • Holders of investment units of mutual funds.
  • Eligible jurisdictions/eligible countries, their regions and municipalities.
  • Other non-Russian entities incorporated in an eligible jurisdiction or an eligible country.
At least one of the parties to the respective derivative transaction should be an entity listed in (i)-(v) above.
Eligible documentation includes cross-border (international) documentation, and Russian standard documentation.
Cross-border (international) documentation may be used if one of the counterparties is a foreign entity. It includes master agreements developed by international organisations included in the list to be approved by the FSFM (it is understood that such list might include, among others, the International Swap Dealers Association, Inc.). Russian standard documentation includes domestic master agreements which are to conform to certain "model provisions" developed by Russian self-regulating organisations (SROs) (it is understood that such documentation might include, among others, that recently developed under the auspices of ARB and NAUFOR). Such "model provisions" and any amendments are also be approved by the FSFM.
Furthermore, in case of OTC transactions, in order for the netting arrangements to be enforceable, the Amending Law also requires inclusion of each respective agreement in the register kept by a stock exchange or by an SRO, which, in turn, is required to report to the FSFM.
The Clearing Law will enter into force on 1 January 2012 and the Amending Law entered into force on 11 February 2011 (save for a few provisions that will enter into force on different dates: in particular, the rules allowing close-out netting will enter into force on 11 August 2011).