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.
DISTRIBUTION OF LOSSES BETWEEN JOINT DEBTORS
Creditors applied to the court for the inclusion of claims in the debtor's register (case no. A60-59658/20)
The Court of First Instance stated that the deadline for these requirements was not missed, since it began to flow from the moment the enforcement proceedings ended.
Having established that the debt was repaid by one of the citizens within the framework of enforcement proceedings, and by the other during the execution of the restructuring plan, the court concluded that one citizen did not have the right of recourse, while the second creditor has the right of recourse against the debtor in the amount of a certain amount. The claim of the second citizen is included in the register of creditors' claims of the debtor in the amount of the specified amount.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the court of first instance had exceeded the stated requirements. The court also pointed out the fallacy of dividing all responsibility between two joint defendants and determining the share of responsibility by dividing the total amount of claims in half. In addition, the court of appeal noted that the repayment of the debt by the guarantors could not be attributed to the repayment of such debt by the citizen personally, therefore, the right of recourse did not arise.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, noting that the persons involved were not persons controlling the debtor and were held liable for the tort obligations of the person controlling the debtor.
In the circumstances described, the conclusion of the court of first instance that the debt was repaid by one citizen in the framework of enforcement proceedings and by another in the process of executing the restructuring plan is correct.
However, the court of first instance went beyond the stated requirements, unlawfully including in the register of creditors of the debtor's claims a claim in excess of the stated amount.
Photo: Freepik
The Court of First Instance stated that the deadline for these requirements was not missed, since it began to flow from the moment the enforcement proceedings ended.
Having established that the debt was repaid by one of the citizens within the framework of enforcement proceedings, and by the other during the execution of the restructuring plan, the court concluded that one citizen did not have the right of recourse, while the second creditor has the right of recourse against the debtor in the amount of a certain amount. The claim of the second citizen is included in the register of creditors' claims of the debtor in the amount of the specified amount.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the court of first instance had exceeded the stated requirements. The court also pointed out the fallacy of dividing all responsibility between two joint defendants and determining the share of responsibility by dividing the total amount of claims in half. In addition, the court of appeal noted that the repayment of the debt by the guarantors could not be attributed to the repayment of such debt by the citizen personally, therefore, the right of recourse did not arise.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, noting that the persons involved were not persons controlling the debtor and were held liable for the tort obligations of the person controlling the debtor.
In the circumstances described, the conclusion of the court of first instance that the debt was repaid by one citizen in the framework of enforcement proceedings and by another in the process of executing the restructuring plan is correct.
However, the court of first instance went beyond the stated requirements, unlawfully including in the register of creditors of the debtor's claims a claim in excess of the stated amount.
Photo: Freepik
27.05.2025
