Franking borrowers' settlement with the Getin Noble Bank Receiver - is it possible?

A recent topic of one of our articles was the issue of settlements proposed and concluded between banks and franking borrowers. It was not only the banks that were interested in a consensual solution to the dispute, hoping to reduce the costs accompanying the proceedings and the possible loss of a case for a declaration of invalidity of a mortgage loan valorised with the Swiss franc exchange rate. Also consumers, observing protracted court proceedings, preferred to use this shortened (although often less favourable) option of ending the dispute with the bank. At the moment, it can be taken for granted that the receiver Marcin Kubiczek will also offer the mentioned solution to the franc borrowers.

What can GNB franking borrowers count on?

It is important to remember that the receiver, before proposing anything to the borrowers who have decided to sue the bankrupt bank, must agree his strategy with the commissioner judge, who oversees the bankruptcy proceedings. He may not agree to the settlement proposals formulated by the trustee. However, if the commissioner judge gives the green light to the settlement proposals, they will not be very generous in our view. This is because the decisive factor will be what amount of ‘free funds’ the bankruptcy estate will have at its disposal after satisfying the first two groups of claims, which include claims arising from the employment relationship, as well as public levies. The claims of franking borrowers will be satisfied only in the third and fourth order (more on this in the article: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jakub-hirnle-33697819a_chf-bankruptcy-gnb-activity-7094243098859384832-VaeY?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop ). The receiver may consequently no longer have the financial background to propose favourable settlement terms to the borrowers. After all, as the bankrupt's representative, he or she must manage the bankrupt's assets so that as many creditors as possible receive satisfaction, even if not in full.

Litigation is better than inaction

In the case as a whole, the franking creditors who sued the bankrupt bank are certainly in an advantageous position. For it is to them that the receiver intends to propose a settlement (whatever it may be). However, the group of borrowers who have not initiated the dispute will not be offered a consensual solution to the dispute. The receiver, due to the aforementioned care for the assets of the Getin Noble Bank bankruptcy estate, will not propose settlements to persons who do not dispute the concluded loan agreement. However, it is not too late to do so - Getin can still be sued. By taking such a step, in addition to the prospect of concluding the settlement in question, the borrower's situation may be significantly improved, starting with the possibility of suspending repayment of the loan and obtaining an earlier and more complete settlement of claims.