Marketinvest supports Bank24.ru’s claims
15 January 2010 (15:35)
Sverdlovsk Region Arbitration Court keeps looking into the claim laid by Bank24.ru against Ural Transport Bank.
The court session scheduled for January 14, 2010 is to be devoted to the bank’s demand that UralTransBank pay the plaintiff 50 million RUR. Marketinvest, OOO Estate, and OOO Specter are involved in the case as third parties.
The sum in question is reported to stem from a number of promissory notes (096601, 096602, 096603, 096604, and 096605) issued by UralTransBank on July 21, 2009. The notes are to be paid on demand but no earlier than November 20, 2009. There are also notes 096441, 096638, 096445, and 096640 that were issued on July 27, 2009 and that are to be paid on demand but no earlier than October 27, 2009. What is more, the plaintiff claims some interest should be paid for the period from October 30, 2009 to the day the court’s ruling has been made.
The defendant refuses to admit the plaintiff’s demands are grounded. UralTransBank insists that neither the bank itself nor its Nizhniy Tagil subsidiary issued these notes and no authorized representative signed them.
Marketinvest, in its turn, supports Bank24.ru’s claims.
The court session scheduled for January 14, 2010 is to be devoted to the bank’s demand that UralTransBank pay the plaintiff 50 million RUR. Marketinvest, OOO Estate, and OOO Specter are involved in the case as third parties.
The sum in question is reported to stem from a number of promissory notes (096601, 096602, 096603, 096604, and 096605) issued by UralTransBank on July 21, 2009. The notes are to be paid on demand but no earlier than November 20, 2009. There are also notes 096441, 096638, 096445, and 096640 that were issued on July 27, 2009 and that are to be paid on demand but no earlier than October 27, 2009. What is more, the plaintiff claims some interest should be paid for the period from October 30, 2009 to the day the court’s ruling has been made.
The defendant refuses to admit the plaintiff’s demands are grounded. UralTransBank insists that neither the bank itself nor its Nizhniy Tagil subsidiary issued these notes and no authorized representative signed them.
Marketinvest, in its turn, supports Bank24.ru’s claims.
 | Embed to Blog |  | Subscribe to Newsletter |  |