A NON-RANDOM CHOICE OF BANKRUPTCY MANAGER LED TO CANCELLATION OF TWO COURT ORDERS

The case on the complaint of a group of the debtor's creditors was submitted to the Commercial Court of the Ural District. The appealers were not satisfied with a random choice of a bankruptcy manager, who, in their opinion, was affiliated with another group of creditors and could be biased.

The fact was that the court of first instance sent messages to a number of SROs with a request to send their candidacies for managers. As a result, the candidate whose SRO was the first send the necessary package of documents was confirmed. The ruling passed withstood the appeal, but then it was canceled.

When considering the appeal in the cassation instance, it turned out that the letter of the SRO, in which the readiness to provide a manager was expressed, was drawn up before receiving a message from the court with a proposal to nominate a candidate for bankruptcy manager.

There was no answer to the question of how it happened.

In addition, the cassation instance drew attention to the fact that the method chosen by the court of first instance does not meet the criteria for random selection at all, as it created competition between SROs, which was unacceptable in such a situation.

Moreover, since the legislation does not clearly regulate the procedure for conducting the procedure for the random selection of a manager, each court may have its own rules. It was also determined in the court of first instance, as evidenced by the publication of the corresponding order.

Despite this, the judge chose a different method that did not meet the requirements of a random choice, which was the reason for the cancellation of the court orders (resolution No. F09-7210 / 19 of January 13, 2021).