MOSCOW, February 16 - RAPSI. The Supreme Commercial Court Presidium will hear on February 21 the case concerning Vnesheconombank's (VEB) registration of Leramony Associates Inc as a holder of the Soviet debt and the payment of $104.2 million from the Russian budget to the company, the court told the Russian Legal Information Agency (RAPSI/rapsinews.com) on Thursday.

On November 29, 2010, the commercial court obligated Vnesheconombank to register Leramony Associates as a holder of the debt under product supply contracts. The court also obligated the Finance Ministry to pay the $104.2 million debt to Leramony Associates Inc.

The court also obligated the Austrian-based Meinl Bank AG to fulfill its obligations under a concession agreement concluded on October 6, 2009 with Leramony Associates Inc. The court ordered the bank to send notifications to Prodintertog and Prodintorg on the assignment of creditor rights.

The Moscow District Federal Commercial Court canceled on June 29 lower-court decisions on VEB's registration of Leramony Associates Inc as a holder of Soviet debt and the payment of $104.2 million from the Russian budget to the company.

The first-instance court's decision reads that the dispute arose due to the non-execution of payment obligations under foreign economic contracts on goods supplies concluded by Prodintorg and Italgrani SpA.

The lawsuit reads that Meinl Bank AG assigned Leramony Associates rights previously acquired from Progetto Grano SPA, which received the rights from Italgrani SpA.

The Finance Ministry believes that Russia agreed to consider such debts on specific and established terms. The payment of the debts is not Russia's obligation, the ministry believes.

VEB said in court that a specific order for the verification of the debts was established, so the debt could be ruled as the commercial debt of the former Soviet Union. Neither the plaintiff, nor other companies stated by the plaintiff appealed to VEB regarding the debt verification. The statute of limitations also expired in 2008, the bank said.

The bank said at the hearing that the court did not provide the plaintiff with the original documents.