RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
BANKRUPTCY IN A RELATED WAY: THE HISTORY OF A SINGLE WITHDRAWAL
The creditor appealed to the court with a demand to invalidate the transfer of funds by the debtor in favor of the company and apply the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction (case no. A40-151554/19).
In rejecting the application, the courts of two instances proceeded from the creditor's choice of an inappropriate way to protect the violated right, pointing out that the resolution of these arguments goes beyond the scope of the application for invalidation of the transaction. In the opinion of the courts, the applicant's arguments were actually aimed at revising the judicial acts that had entered into force. The subject of the dispute is not a transaction made by the debtor or at the expense of his property, but the issue of the validity of the distribution of funds by the bankruptcy trustee as part of the bankruptcy procedure of the controlled company.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that the courts had made a mistake in determining the method of protecting the rights of the bankruptcy creditor. Even if we are talking about settlements under assignment agreements, this does not exclude the possibility of challenging such transactions in the bankruptcy case of an individual if they affect the formation of the bankruptcy estate.
Also, as the court noted, it was established that there was an affiliation between the bankruptcy trustee of the company and the beneficiary of the group of companies (the debtor's brother). This fact significantly affects the distribution of the burden of proof.
In addition, the cassation drew attention to the fact that the previously investigated assignment agreements were recognized as concluded in order to maintain control over the "friendly" debt. This requires a review of the legality of payments made on them. It is also unreasonably concluded that it is impossible to re-evaluate the allocation of funds within the framework of the bankruptcy procedure of the company, since the disputed transaction was completed after the completion of this process.
Photo: Freepik
In rejecting the application, the courts of two instances proceeded from the creditor's choice of an inappropriate way to protect the violated right, pointing out that the resolution of these arguments goes beyond the scope of the application for invalidation of the transaction. In the opinion of the courts, the applicant's arguments were actually aimed at revising the judicial acts that had entered into force. The subject of the dispute is not a transaction made by the debtor or at the expense of his property, but the issue of the validity of the distribution of funds by the bankruptcy trustee as part of the bankruptcy procedure of the controlled company.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that the courts had made a mistake in determining the method of protecting the rights of the bankruptcy creditor. Even if we are talking about settlements under assignment agreements, this does not exclude the possibility of challenging such transactions in the bankruptcy case of an individual if they affect the formation of the bankruptcy estate.
Also, as the court noted, it was established that there was an affiliation between the bankruptcy trustee of the company and the beneficiary of the group of companies (the debtor's brother). This fact significantly affects the distribution of the burden of proof.
In addition, the cassation drew attention to the fact that the previously investigated assignment agreements were recognized as concluded in order to maintain control over the "friendly" debt. This requires a review of the legality of payments made on them. It is also unreasonably concluded that it is impossible to re-evaluate the allocation of funds within the framework of the bankruptcy procedure of the company, since the disputed transaction was completed after the completion of this process.
Photo: Freepik
11.09.2025
