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.
CONTROVERSIAL CHAIN: IS IT POSSIBLE TO INVALIDATE TRANSACTIONS THROUGH TWO INTERMEDIARIES?
The manager applied to the court for invalidation of the chain of transactions for the alienation of the debtor's vehicle (case no. A15-313/20).
By refusing to recognize the transactions as invalid, the court of first instance concluded that the administrator had missed the limitation period, the application of which was stated by the defendant. At the same time, the court proceeded from the fact that the insolvency (bankruptcy) proceedings had been initiated, the contract had been concluded more than three years before the acceptance of the application for declaring the debtor bankrupt.
The appeal satisfied the application, pointing out that at the date of conclusion of the disputed agreements, the debtor had unfulfilled obligations to credit institutions and the tax authority, whose claims were subsequently included in the register of creditors' claims of the debtor. The Court of Appeal also referred to the fact that the defendants did not disclose the circumstances of the conclusion and execution of the transaction.
In view of the above, the court of appeal noted that the debtor, when selling the vehicle, pursued the goal of changing the title owner of the property. The conclusion of vehicle purchase and sale transactions for the debtor was an economically inexpedient action, since the transactions were concluded on unfavorable terms for the seller, which do not correspond to market conditions.
Rejecting the defendants' arguments about missing the limitation period, the court of Appeal proceeded from the fact that the manager became aware of the alienation in favor of the first buyer of the disputed car from the response of the law enforcement agency.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration and noted the following:
Photo: Freepik
By refusing to recognize the transactions as invalid, the court of first instance concluded that the administrator had missed the limitation period, the application of which was stated by the defendant. At the same time, the court proceeded from the fact that the insolvency (bankruptcy) proceedings had been initiated, the contract had been concluded more than three years before the acceptance of the application for declaring the debtor bankrupt.
The appeal satisfied the application, pointing out that at the date of conclusion of the disputed agreements, the debtor had unfulfilled obligations to credit institutions and the tax authority, whose claims were subsequently included in the register of creditors' claims of the debtor. The Court of Appeal also referred to the fact that the defendants did not disclose the circumstances of the conclusion and execution of the transaction.
In view of the above, the court of appeal noted that the debtor, when selling the vehicle, pursued the goal of changing the title owner of the property. The conclusion of vehicle purchase and sale transactions for the debtor was an economically inexpedient action, since the transactions were concluded on unfavorable terms for the seller, which do not correspond to market conditions.
Rejecting the defendants' arguments about missing the limitation period, the court of Appeal proceeded from the fact that the manager became aware of the alienation in favor of the first buyer of the disputed car from the response of the law enforcement agency.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration and noted the following:
- The case materials do not contain evidence that the court of first instance sent a request to the migration service for an address certificate in order to establish the registration address and actual residence of the defendants.
- By repeatedly postponing the court session and inviting the defendants to provide explanations regarding the circumstances of the transaction in the absence of information about the defendant's actual residence address, the court of appeal did not eliminate the violations committed by the court of first instance, did not send a corresponding request to the migration service, thereby did not take the necessary procedural measures and actually limited the person involved in the case in the right to judicial protection.
- On the merits of the dispute, the judicial board considers it necessary to note that the identical content of the purchase and sale agreements and the undervalued value alone do not indicate the interconnectedness of the contracts concluded with a time interval.
- The financial manager referred only to the fact that the defendant was also the buyer of another debtor's car, which, in his opinion, indicates the affiliation of the participants in the disputed legal relationship.
- The above argument, in the absence of other evidence confirming the commission of the first transaction in order to cover up the transaction that was actually meant, without further establishing other circumstances in a separate dispute, is insufficient evidence to conclude that there are grounds for declaring the disputed transactions invalid as a single chain.
Photo: Freepik
01.08.2025
