ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS TO A SUBSIDIARY DEFENDANT IS NOT A BASIS FOR REDUCING THE CLAIM

ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS TO A SUBSIDIARY DEFENDANT IS NOT A BASIS FOR REDUCING THE CLAIM

ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS TO A SUBSIDIARY DEFENDANT IS NOT A BASIS FOR REDUCING THE CLAIM
The manager appealed to the court with an application in which he asked to reduce the creditor's claim in the debtor's register in connection with the assignment to the creditor of part of the claim against subsidiary defendants (case no. A40-242492/18).

The courts of three instances satisfied the application, based on the fact that the creditor does not have the right to claim the funds received by the debtor's bankruptcy estate after choosing a method of disposing of subsidiary liability. Since the creditor has been issued a writ of execution to recover funds from persons controlling the debtor, the change of person in the obligation has taken place, the reverse transfer of the claim without the will of the debtor will lead to a violation of the principle of autonomy of the will of participants in civil turnover.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation referred the creditor's complaint to the board for consideration and noted the following:

  • The applicant insists that when contacting the manager, he did not declare a change in the method of disposing of the right to claim subsidiary liability, but asked to distribute the funds received into the bankruptcy estate from the debtor, and not from the subsidiary defendants.

  • The transfer to the creditor of a part of the requirement to bring to subsidiary liability the persons controlling the debtor did not reduce the size of its claims against the debtor and subsidiary defendants.

  • The exclusion of these claims from the register was possible only after repayment of the debt owed to the creditor (partially or completely), for which the latter chose to assign the right to claim subsidiary liability, but there is no such evidence in the case materials.

  • In this regard, the applicant believes that the recognition of his claims as settled violates his rights and legitimate interests, since it contradicts the procedural procedure for reviewing the ruling of the court of first instance that has entered into force and the principle of its obligation.


Photo: Freepik


11.03.2024