Features Of Securities Valuation

Part 5 of Art. 85 of the Law on Enforcement Procedure provides for the features (exceptions) of the production of valuation of securities circulating on the organized securities market and investment shares of open and interval mutual investment funds.

The value of securities circulating on the organized securities market is set by the bailiff by requesting prices for securities from the organizer of trading on the securities market, in which the relevant securities are included in the list of securities admitted to trading, and the value of the investment shares opened and interval unit investment funds – by requesting the price of investment units from the management company of the respective investment fund.

15.13. Property Valuation Ordinance

Based on the report of the evaluator, the bailiff in accordance with Part 6 of Art. 85 of the Law on Executive Procedure issues a decision on the valuation of property or property rights.

Copies of the order of the bailiff on the valuation of property or property rights are sent to the parties to the enforcement proceedings no later than the day following the day of its adoption.

According to Part 4 of Art. 85 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, if an expert was involved in the production of property valuation, then the decision on the valuation of a thing or property right should be made by the bailiff not later than three days from the date of receipt of the appraiser’s report. The legislator has established such a term due to the fact that the market or other value of the appraisable object is not fixed and is set on a specific date 1 .

Point 1 of Art. 14 of the Law on Enforcement Procedure provides that all procedural decisions in enforcement proceedings are made only in the form of decisions.

However, the obligation of the bailiff to make an assessment decision does not mean that he has a corresponding right to refuse to accept the appraiser’s report. By an order of assessment, the bailiff shall enclose the conclusion of a specialist in due process.

At the same time, the assessment of the seized property is made by a specialist. The result of the assessment should be presented in the form of a report (expert opinion) that meets the requirements set by the law and the bailiff in the decision on the appointment of a specialist, including the questions raised. Non-compliance with these requirements may be grounds for refusing to accept the opinion of a specialist.

Click on link for read more:  https://www.valsqld.com.au/

15.14. Challenging (appealing) property valuation

The assessment of the property, made by the bailiff without the involvement of an appraiser, may be appealed by the parties to the enforcement proceedings in accordance with the Law on Enforcement Procedure or challenged in court no later than ten days from the date of their notification of the assessment.

The cost of the appraisal object, indicated by the appraiser in the report, may be challenged in court by the parties of the enforcement proceedings not later than ten days from the date of their notification of the appraisal made.

In law enforcement practice there are different views on the possibility of self-challenging the assessment indicated by the appraiser in the report.

According to the position of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation set forth in its information letter No. 92 dated May 30, 2005, “On Arbitration Courts Considering Cases Contesting Property Valuation Made by Independent Valuators” 2 , the market value of the property being valued by an independent appraiser within enforcement proceedings, is advisory in nature, is not mandatory and can not be challenged by self-claim. However, this position was expressed even before the enforcement of the 2007 Law on Enforcement entered into force and could not take into account the provisions of Part 4 of Art. 85 of the Act on the fact that the value of the object of assessment, indicated by the appraiser in the report, may be subject to independent challenge in court.

In this regard, judicial practice on this issue:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *