BUDGET MONEY WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO ALL CREDITORS OF THE BANKRUPT

The bankruptcy trustee of the debtor filed a statement with the court challenging payments in favor of a third party made after the appearance of signs of the debtor's insolvency.

According to Kommersant, the debtor performed the functions of a general contractor under a municipal road construction contract, as part of the fulfillment of obligations under which he hired a third party as a subcontractor. According to the terms of the contract, payment for the work performed was transferred to the debtor's special account, and the subcontractor also received payments to the special account based on the results of the subcontracted work. The work was performed by the subcontractor, after which the debtor transferred the agreed amount in his favor.

Considering such payments to be disputed transactions made with the preferred satisfaction of claims, the bankruptcy trustee appealed to the court with an application to challenge them.

The courts of three instances refused to satisfy the claim, referring to the norms of budget legislation on the targeted nature of funds received by contractors under municipal and state contracts, giving, in fact, these funds executive immunity.

This approach was not shared, however, by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which considered the complaint of the bankruptcy trustee and concluded that there were grounds for its satisfaction. The supreme court refuted the arguments of the lower courts about the absence of the rights of the general contractor in relation to the funds received from the customer for payment under the contract, since from the moment of crediting such payment, he has the right to dispose of them (subject to the performance of work).

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation also rejected the conclusions of the courts on the targeted nature of funds under municipal and state contracts.

In this regard, it is worth noting that this position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is a turn in the early practice of the court, since earlier the Supreme Court considered the funds on the special account of the bankrupt debtor, listed under the state order, not subject to distribution among other creditors.

The only difference between that dispute and the present one is only that in an earlier case it was about a state defense order, however, there is reason to believe that the new position applies to this category of disputes as well.