RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
16/09/2024
Monday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
16 September 
1970 "Black Wednesday" of the British pound sterling.
1970 The Montreal Treaty for the Protection of the Earth's Ozone Layer was signed.
1970 Mexico declared independence from Spain.
16 September
1970 "Black Wednesday" of the British pound sterling.
1970 The Montreal Treaty for the Protection of the Earth's Ozone Layer was signed.
1970 Mexico declared independence from Spain.
CHALLENGING A TRANSACTION BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD IS OBVIOUSLY FUTILE
As part of the debtor's bankruptcy case, the manager appealed to the court with an application for invalidation of the real estate purchase and sale agreement. He did this more than two years after the introduction of the property sale procedure. The manager referred to the fact that he received an extract from the Federal Register only two years after his appointment, and only then did he learn about the deal.
The court of first instance refused to satisfy the claims of the manager. The court charged him a state fee of 6,000 rubles. The refusal was motivated by the omission of the statute of limitations, which was stated by the defendant.
The court of appeal agreed with the lower court and upheld the decision of the first instance, and the complaint was dismissed.
Then the manager filed a complaint with the Court of Cassation with a request to cancel the acts of lower instances only in terms of collecting state duty from him.
However, the district court decided to refuse the manager to satisfy the application, referring to the following (Decision of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District dated 06.10.2023 in case No. A81-5611/2019):
• Since the actions of the manager, who is a professional participant in anti-crisis relations, on filing an application to challenge the transaction were irrational (obviously for the manager they did not actually have a positive prospect for the formation of the bankruptcy estate), entailed an unjustified increase in the costs of conducting the procedure used in the bankruptcy case, the court of first instance legitimately imposed the obligation to pay to the federal budget a state fee of 6,000 rubles per financial manager.
• The arguments of the cassation appeal are aimed at circumventing the rules of the Bankruptcy Law on the standards of performance by the arbitration manager of duties within the framework of the procedure entrusted to him and the need to compensate for losses caused by their improper execution, therefore they cannot be grounds for the cancellation of judicial acts in the part being appealed.
The court of first instance refused to satisfy the claims of the manager. The court charged him a state fee of 6,000 rubles. The refusal was motivated by the omission of the statute of limitations, which was stated by the defendant.
The court of appeal agreed with the lower court and upheld the decision of the first instance, and the complaint was dismissed.
Then the manager filed a complaint with the Court of Cassation with a request to cancel the acts of lower instances only in terms of collecting state duty from him.
However, the district court decided to refuse the manager to satisfy the application, referring to the following (Decision of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District dated 06.10.2023 in case No. A81-5611/2019):
• Since the actions of the manager, who is a professional participant in anti-crisis relations, on filing an application to challenge the transaction were irrational (obviously for the manager they did not actually have a positive prospect for the formation of the bankruptcy estate), entailed an unjustified increase in the costs of conducting the procedure used in the bankruptcy case, the court of first instance legitimately imposed the obligation to pay to the federal budget a state fee of 6,000 rubles per financial manager.
• The arguments of the cassation appeal are aimed at circumventing the rules of the Bankruptcy Law on the standards of performance by the arbitration manager of duties within the framework of the procedure entrusted to him and the need to compensate for losses caused by their improper execution, therefore they cannot be grounds for the cancellation of judicial acts in the part being appealed.
22.05.2024
