Court: the winner of the auction can challenge the actions of the manager as a defense

Court: the winner of the auction can challenge the actions of the manager as a defense

Court: the winner of the auction can challenge the actions of the manager as a defense
The Arbitration Court of the North-West District considered the complaint of the winner of the auction, with whom the contract for the sale and purchase of the property being sold within the framework of the bankruptcy case was not concluded. Instead of it, the organizer published an announcement about the cancellation of the auction, despite the fact that the procedure had already been carried out. The courts of first and appeal instances dismissed the applicant's claims, citing the lack of the right to challenge the actions of organizer of the auction and bankruptcy trustee.

In the bankruptcy case of the company, it was decided to hold an auction, at which the debtor's property was to be sold. The relevant information was published in the Unified Federal Register of Bankruptcy Information, and on the appointed day, three applicants for the conclusion of the transaction took part in the procedure.
Despite the fact that the time for the auction was chosen and the winner was determined, the corresponding agreement was not concluded with him.
Then the buyer first turned to the FAS, which sided with him and issued an order to the organizer. However, the requirements of the antimonopoly authority were not fulfilled. Then the applicant went to court and filed a complaint within the framework of a bankruptcy case. It concerned the actions of both bankruptcy trustee and the organizer of the auction, but the complaint was rejected in two instances in a row. The judges indicated that there was no right to make such claims.

The District Court expressed a different opinion, noting that in the situation under consideration, the applicant simply did not have any other means of protecting the violated rights. Now the claims of the failed auction winner will be re-considered in the court of first instance (decision of August 5, 2021 in case No. A56-53603 / 2018)

01.10.2021