RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
26/07/2026
Sunday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
26 July 
1970 The independence of the Maldives was proclaimed.
1970 The independence of the Maldives was proclaimed.
1970 War on the Indians was declared in Boston
1970 A war on the Native Americans (the Indians) was declared in Boston. From 15 to 100 pounds was promised for the scalp of one Indian.
1970 Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich convened the boyar Duma and the Council of the Patriarch to collect all the old laws and put them in order.
26 July
1970 The independence of the Maldives was proclaimed.
1970 The independence of the Maldives was proclaimed.
1970 War on the Indians was declared in Boston
1970 A war on the Native Americans (the Indians) was declared in Boston. From 15 to 100 pounds was promised for the scalp of one Indian.
1970 Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich convened the boyar Duma and the Council of the Patriarch to collect all the old laws and put them in order.
EFFECT OF THE LENGTH OF TIME SINCE THE PRINTING OF THE SEAL ON THE VALIDITY OF THE CHARGED TRANSACTION
The manager filed a lawsuit to declare the net settlement between the debtor and the company invalid (case No. A56-63790/21).
In denying the application, the first-instance court concluded that the materials of the case did not confirm the existence of a set of circumstances necessary and sufficient to declare the transaction invalid on the grounds stated by the manager.
In granting the application, the court of appeal took into account that, according to the expert's findings, the debtor's seal impression on the settlement statement was made no earlier than March 2023. In addition, the defendant's delivery of goods to the debtor's address was not properly confirmed. No evidence has been provided of the delivery of a specific volume of products to the debtor, or of the possibility of such delivery by the company, since the total weight of the soft containers delivered was at least 19,698 kg, and the volume was at least 140 cubic meters, while it was not possible to store such a volume at the delivery address specified in the invoices.
The Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first instance, pointing out that the expert report did not contain a conclusion about the date of the document's creation, but only established the time of application of one of the details: the company's seal was applied no earlier than 24 months before the date of the examination. From the expert's report and his explanations, it follows that it is not possible to determine the exact period of the disputed document's creation, and the court of appeal substituted the expert's conclusion with its own assumption.
In the case of objective incompleteness of the expert opinion (the impossibility to establish the date of the document, the lack of research of the signature and seal of the second party), the court of appeal unreasonably refused to appoint an additional examination.
The court of appeal did not examine the circumstances of the actual place of delivery and storage of the goods, in particular, the court did not take into account that the goods were not delivered to the office premises, but were placed and stored on a different site: the debtor used a container site, which is confirmed by the contractual relations on the lease of this site, the statements on the debtor's account reflecting the payment for its lease.
The court also unreasonably did not take into account the universal transfer documents confirming the shipment of products, the invoices for the movement of finished products, and other documents confirming the reality of the company's business relations and the fulfillment of its obligations.
The court of appeal, while recognizing the harm caused to the debtor's creditors, did not establish a decrease in the bankruptcy estate, a worsening of the creditors' situation compared to the situation before the offset, or the presence of any signs of the debtor's and the defendant's interest. The court changed the way in which the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction were applied and actually recovered funds only from the company, without giving any reasons for refusing to restore counter-obligations and applying unilateral restitution.
In this situation, in the opinion of the district court, the court of first instance legitimately concluded that the expert's opinion does not confirm the actual production of the act of settlement later than the date indicated in it, affixing the debtor's seal later than the specified date is not a sufficient basis for such a conclusion. In turn, the bankruptcy trustee did not refute the company's manager's arguments that the goods were not stored at the address specified in the shipping manifests, but rather at a container site, as evidenced by the documents on the lease agreement for this site presented to the court of first instance. However, the court of appeal did not consider or evaluate this fact properly.
In denying the application, the first-instance court concluded that the materials of the case did not confirm the existence of a set of circumstances necessary and sufficient to declare the transaction invalid on the grounds stated by the manager.
In granting the application, the court of appeal took into account that, according to the expert's findings, the debtor's seal impression on the settlement statement was made no earlier than March 2023. In addition, the defendant's delivery of goods to the debtor's address was not properly confirmed. No evidence has been provided of the delivery of a specific volume of products to the debtor, or of the possibility of such delivery by the company, since the total weight of the soft containers delivered was at least 19,698 kg, and the volume was at least 140 cubic meters, while it was not possible to store such a volume at the delivery address specified in the invoices.
The Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first instance, pointing out that the expert report did not contain a conclusion about the date of the document's creation, but only established the time of application of one of the details: the company's seal was applied no earlier than 24 months before the date of the examination. From the expert's report and his explanations, it follows that it is not possible to determine the exact period of the disputed document's creation, and the court of appeal substituted the expert's conclusion with its own assumption.
In the case of objective incompleteness of the expert opinion (the impossibility to establish the date of the document, the lack of research of the signature and seal of the second party), the court of appeal unreasonably refused to appoint an additional examination.
The court of appeal did not examine the circumstances of the actual place of delivery and storage of the goods, in particular, the court did not take into account that the goods were not delivered to the office premises, but were placed and stored on a different site: the debtor used a container site, which is confirmed by the contractual relations on the lease of this site, the statements on the debtor's account reflecting the payment for its lease.
The court also unreasonably did not take into account the universal transfer documents confirming the shipment of products, the invoices for the movement of finished products, and other documents confirming the reality of the company's business relations and the fulfillment of its obligations.
The court of appeal, while recognizing the harm caused to the debtor's creditors, did not establish a decrease in the bankruptcy estate, a worsening of the creditors' situation compared to the situation before the offset, or the presence of any signs of the debtor's and the defendant's interest. The court changed the way in which the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction were applied and actually recovered funds only from the company, without giving any reasons for refusing to restore counter-obligations and applying unilateral restitution.
In this situation, in the opinion of the district court, the court of first instance legitimately concluded that the expert's opinion does not confirm the actual production of the act of settlement later than the date indicated in it, affixing the debtor's seal later than the specified date is not a sufficient basis for such a conclusion. In turn, the bankruptcy trustee did not refute the company's manager's arguments that the goods were not stored at the address specified in the shipping manifests, but rather at a container site, as evidenced by the documents on the lease agreement for this site presented to the court of first instance. However, the court of appeal did not consider or evaluate this fact properly.
30.06.2026
