RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
29/06/2026
Monday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
29 June 
1970 The first iPhone went on sale in the United States.
1970 The first iPhone went on sale in the United States.
1970 Seychelles gained independence.
1970 Seychelles gained independence.
1970 Mixed marriages were banned in South Africa.
1970 Mixed marriages were banned in South Africa.
29 June
1970 The first iPhone went on sale in the United States.
1970 The first iPhone went on sale in the United States.
1970 Seychelles gained independence.
1970 Seychelles gained independence.
1970 Mixed marriages were banned in South Africa.
1970 Mixed marriages were banned in South Africa.
ARCHITECTURE OF MIXED TRANSACTIONS AND THE BURDEN OF PROVING THEIR REALITY IN BANKRUPTCY
The manager filed a lawsuit to declare the supply contract and the equipment lease contract invalid (case No. A10-1060/20).
In partially satisfying the claim, the courts of two instances proceeded from the fact that the contracts were concluded for the purpose of increasing the debtor's accounts payable and concluded that the affiliation of the company and the debtor allowed for the preparation of any documents, including those that did not reflect the real facts of economic life.
On the same basis (due to the debtor's and the defendant's affiliation, the possibility of preparing any documents, and the accounting for the sale of goods in the financial statements), the courts concluded that this transaction was a cover for a gift transaction.
The gift transaction (the transfer of funds in the absence of a counter-performance) is invalid because it resulted in the reduction of the debtor's property in favor of an affiliated person, which made it impossible to repay the debt, and because it violated the prohibition on gifts between commercial organizations.
The cassation court sent the dispute for a new trial, pointing out that the disputed contract is a mixed contract, including elements of a supply contract and a sales contract.
Thus, the disputed supply contract was partially fulfilled by the delivery of goods, and partially the obligations under it were fulfilled by the set-off of reciprocal homogeneous claims, which eliminates the nullity of the disputed contract in principle. At the same time, the courts did not check, evaluate, or consider the arguments about the reality of the set-off of reciprocal homogeneous claims.
In addition, the courts did not evaluate the defendant's arguments about the absence of affiliation with the debtor through a third company, and these circumstances were evaluated in a court ruling in another case.
On the same basis (due to the debtor's and the defendant's affiliation, the possibility of preparing any documents, and the accounting for the sale of goods in the financial statements), the courts concluded that this transaction was a cover for a gift transaction.
The gift transaction (the transfer of funds in the absence of a counter-performance) is invalid because it resulted in the reduction of the debtor's property in favor of an affiliated person, which made it impossible to repay the debt, and because it violated the prohibition on gifts between commercial organizations.
The cassation court sent the dispute for a new trial, pointing out that the disputed contract is a mixed contract, including elements of a supply contract and a sales contract.
Thus, the disputed supply contract was partially fulfilled by the delivery of goods, and partially the obligations under it were fulfilled by the set-off of reciprocal homogeneous claims, which eliminates the nullity of the disputed contract in principle. At the same time, the courts did not check, evaluate, or consider the arguments about the reality of the set-off of reciprocal homogeneous claims.
In addition, the courts did not evaluate the defendant's arguments about the absence of affiliation with the debtor through a third company, and these circumstances were evaluated in a court ruling in another case.
26.06.2026
