RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
21/07/2026
Tuesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
21 July 
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
21 July
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
BILL OF LIEU AND BORDERS OF EVIDENCE REQUEST
The manager filed a request with the court to obtain information from the company about the circumstances of the manager's acquisition of the rights of the proper holder of the bank's promissory note (case No. A40-128832/23).
In denying the application, the courts of two instances proceeded from the fact that the manager had not provided evidence that the information requested could contribute to the replenishment of the debtor's bankruptcy estate. In addition, it had not been proven that it was impossible to obtain the necessary information independently.
The Court of Cassation sent the dispute back for a new trial, noting that, contrary to the courts' findings, when applying to the arbitration court with a request for evidence, the manager indicated that he had made a pre-trial request for evidence to the company, along with the request itself and evidence of its submission to the company, and also indicated that there had been no response to the request from the date of submission to the date of application to the court. This time period significantly exceeds the seven-day deadline for providing information to the arbitration manager, as required by law. This period of non-response also exceeds any other reasonable timeframe for providing information upon a motivated request from an authorized person, as is customary in business transactions.
The applicant provided the court of first instance with full and proper evidence of the impossibility of independently obtaining the requested evidence.
In concluding that there was no evidence that the information sought could contribute to the replenishment of the bankruptcy estate, the courts failed to take into account that measures aimed at forming the debtor's bankruptcy estate include, among other things, judicial measures to restore the debtor's violated property rights by filing claims to declare the debtor's transactions invalid, both on the special grounds provided for in the Bankruptcy Law and on general civil grounds of invalidity, property claims against third parties who are the debtor's contractors, claims for damages, etc.
In this regard, the establishment and investigation of the circumstances of the asset's disposition from the debtor's possession, the provision of information about which is the subject of the request for recovery, is directly aimed at the bankruptcy trustee's fulfillment of their duties to implement measures aimed at replenishing the debtor's bankruptcy estate, particularly by using the mechanism of judicial challenge to the validity and legality of the debtor's disposition of their property to third parties in the absence of evidence of counter-performance.
In denying the application, the courts of two instances proceeded from the fact that the manager had not provided evidence that the information requested could contribute to the replenishment of the debtor's bankruptcy estate. In addition, it had not been proven that it was impossible to obtain the necessary information independently.
The Court of Cassation sent the dispute back for a new trial, noting that, contrary to the courts' findings, when applying to the arbitration court with a request for evidence, the manager indicated that he had made a pre-trial request for evidence to the company, along with the request itself and evidence of its submission to the company, and also indicated that there had been no response to the request from the date of submission to the date of application to the court. This time period significantly exceeds the seven-day deadline for providing information to the arbitration manager, as required by law. This period of non-response also exceeds any other reasonable timeframe for providing information upon a motivated request from an authorized person, as is customary in business transactions.
The applicant provided the court of first instance with full and proper evidence of the impossibility of independently obtaining the requested evidence.
In concluding that there was no evidence that the information sought could contribute to the replenishment of the bankruptcy estate, the courts failed to take into account that measures aimed at forming the debtor's bankruptcy estate include, among other things, judicial measures to restore the debtor's violated property rights by filing claims to declare the debtor's transactions invalid, both on the special grounds provided for in the Bankruptcy Law and on general civil grounds of invalidity, property claims against third parties who are the debtor's contractors, claims for damages, etc.
In this regard, the establishment and investigation of the circumstances of the asset's disposition from the debtor's possession, the provision of information about which is the subject of the request for recovery, is directly aimed at the bankruptcy trustee's fulfillment of their duties to implement measures aimed at replenishing the debtor's bankruptcy estate, particularly by using the mechanism of judicial challenge to the validity and legality of the debtor's disposition of their property to third parties in the absence of evidence of counter-performance.
14.07.2026
