RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
01/01/2025
Wednesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
1 January 
2021 Gregorian calendar New Year.
2020 Gregorian calendar New Year
1998 Denomination was held in Russia - a copeck was put into circulation again.
1998 Denomination was held in Russia - a penny was put into circulation again
1935 Surnames were introduced instead of titles in Turkey.
1935 Surnames were introduced instead of titles in Turkey in 1935
1 January
2021 Gregorian calendar New Year.
2020 Gregorian calendar New Year
1998 Denomination was held in Russia - a copeck was put into circulation again.
1998 Denomination was held in Russia - a penny was put into circulation again
1935 Surnames were introduced instead of titles in Turkey.
1935 Surnames were introduced instead of titles in Turkey in 1935
ENSURING THE ECONOMIC NEEDS OF THE DEBTOR IS NOT AN ABUSE
The manager appealed to the court with an application to challenge the transaction on the transfer of funds by the debtor to the defendant (case no. A40-16854/22).
The court of first instance granted the application, declaring the transaction invalid on special grounds, recognizing as proven the existence of a sign of insolvency at the time of its commission.
The appeal rejected the argument that the debtor had a sign of insolvency, but declared the transaction invalid on general grounds. The instance pointed out that in the present case, the debtor's systematic transfer of funds to the defendant under the guise of reimbursement of expenses for economic needs is aimed at worsening the debtor's property situation. This also indicates an abuse of the right on the defendant's side.
The cassation refused to satisfy the application, explaining its approach by the fact that the systematic transfer of funds by the debtor to the defendant under the guise of reimbursement of expenses for economic needs, contrary to the conclusions of the court of appeal, does not confirm the existence of the purpose of causing harm and, moreover, does not prove abuse of the right by the parties. At the same time, since the purpose of harming the property interests of the debtor's creditor has not been proven, there is no creditor person whose interests would be harmed by making disputed payments.
The court of first instance granted the application, declaring the transaction invalid on special grounds, recognizing as proven the existence of a sign of insolvency at the time of its commission.
The appeal rejected the argument that the debtor had a sign of insolvency, but declared the transaction invalid on general grounds. The instance pointed out that in the present case, the debtor's systematic transfer of funds to the defendant under the guise of reimbursement of expenses for economic needs is aimed at worsening the debtor's property situation. This also indicates an abuse of the right on the defendant's side.
The cassation refused to satisfy the application, explaining its approach by the fact that the systematic transfer of funds by the debtor to the defendant under the guise of reimbursement of expenses for economic needs, contrary to the conclusions of the court of appeal, does not confirm the existence of the purpose of causing harm and, moreover, does not prove abuse of the right by the parties. At the same time, since the purpose of harming the property interests of the debtor's creditor has not been proven, there is no creditor person whose interests would be harmed by making disputed payments.
17.05.2024
