RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
02/05/2024
Thursday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
2 May 
1955 The caste-based discrimination was prohibited in India.
1955 The caste-based discrimination was prohibited in India.
1703 The first Russian gymnasium was founded in Moscow.
1703 The first Russian gymnasium was founded in Moscow.
1509 The Spaniards founded the city of San Juan, now Puerto Rico.
1509 The Spaniards founded the city of San Juan, now Puerto Rico.
2 May
1955 The caste-based discrimination was prohibited in India.
1955 The caste-based discrimination was prohibited in India.
1703 The first Russian gymnasium was founded in Moscow.
1703 The first Russian gymnasium was founded in Moscow.
1509 The Spaniards founded the city of San Juan, now Puerto Rico.
1509 The Spaniards founded the city of San Juan, now Puerto Rico.
CHALLENGING THE COMPANY'S TRANSACTIONS DOES NOT INDICATE THE DEFENDANT'S BAD FAITH IN HIS PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY
As part of the bankruptcy case of a citizen (No. A56-33798/21), the manager filed an application to challenge real estate purchase and sale transactions.
Satisfying the application, the courts of two instances pointed out that the circumstances preceding the conclusion of the disputed transactions and the behavior of the parties to these transactions go beyond the scope of the disposition of article 61.2 of the Bankruptcy Law, and their actions violate the rights of creditors and do not meet the criteria of good faith. At the same time, in the opinion of the courts, the fact of challenging transactions with him in the framework of the bankruptcy case of the company testified to the dishonesty of the debtor.
The District Court sent the dispute for reconsideration and noted that from the judicial acts contained in the electronic system "File of Arbitration Cases" adopted in the framework of the bankruptcy case of the Company, it follows that transactions that caused losses to the Company, subsequently recovered from the debtor, were declared invalid on the grounds provided for by the Bankruptcy Law, thus, were contested.
Taking into account the stated grounds to believe that the debtor, alienating the land plot, workshop and storage, knew that the transactions approved by him as a participant in the Company would be invalidated in the framework of the bankruptcy case of the latter, while the Company's counterparties under these transactions would not be able to reimburse the property losses of the Company under these transactions, according to the court of cassation, are missing.
In such a situation, the conclusions of the courts that the actions of the defendants in concluding the disputed purchase and sale agreements violate the rights of creditors and do not meet the criteria of good faith cannot be recognized as corresponding to the actual circumstances of the case, the evidence presented during the consideration of this separate dispute and based on the correct application of substantive law.
Photo: Freepik
Satisfying the application, the courts of two instances pointed out that the circumstances preceding the conclusion of the disputed transactions and the behavior of the parties to these transactions go beyond the scope of the disposition of article 61.2 of the Bankruptcy Law, and their actions violate the rights of creditors and do not meet the criteria of good faith. At the same time, in the opinion of the courts, the fact of challenging transactions with him in the framework of the bankruptcy case of the company testified to the dishonesty of the debtor.
The District Court sent the dispute for reconsideration and noted that from the judicial acts contained in the electronic system "File of Arbitration Cases" adopted in the framework of the bankruptcy case of the Company, it follows that transactions that caused losses to the Company, subsequently recovered from the debtor, were declared invalid on the grounds provided for by the Bankruptcy Law, thus, were contested.
Taking into account the stated grounds to believe that the debtor, alienating the land plot, workshop and storage, knew that the transactions approved by him as a participant in the Company would be invalidated in the framework of the bankruptcy case of the latter, while the Company's counterparties under these transactions would not be able to reimburse the property losses of the Company under these transactions, according to the court of cassation, are missing.
In such a situation, the conclusions of the courts that the actions of the defendants in concluding the disputed purchase and sale agreements violate the rights of creditors and do not meet the criteria of good faith cannot be recognized as corresponding to the actual circumstances of the case, the evidence presented during the consideration of this separate dispute and based on the correct application of substantive law.
Photo: Freepik
14.02.2024
