RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
27/12/2024
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
27 December 
1970 Franco's dictatorship ended in Spain.
1970 The Netherlands recognized the independence of Indonesia.
1970 The introduction of the passport system in the USSR and the formation of the passport and visa service.
1970 the introduction of the passport system in the USSR and the formation of the passport and visa service.
27 December
1970 Franco's dictatorship ended in Spain.
1970 The Netherlands recognized the independence of Indonesia.
1970 The introduction of the passport system in the USSR and the formation of the passport and visa service.
1970 the introduction of the passport system in the USSR and the formation of the passport and visa service.
FEATURES OF CHALLENGING CORPORATE OPTIONS IN BANKRUPTCY
The debtor's manager filed a lawsuit to challenge the option agreement to purchase a share in the company's authorized capital (case no. A33-30849/20).
The courts of two instances satisfied the application, concluding that there are grounds for recognizing a chain of transactions for the conclusion of an agreement on the provision of an option to conclude an agreement (option to conclude an agreement) for the purchase and sale of a share in the authorized capital of the company, an agreement on the termination of an agreement on the provision of an option to conclude an agreement (option to conclude an agreement) for the purchase and sale of a share in the authorized capital of the company, an agreement for the purchase and sale of a share in the authorized capital, invalid as an imaginary transaction.
The cassation refused to satisfy the claims, noting that the first of the contested transactions, the termination of the option agreement, is aimed at terminating obligations from a previously concluded agreement.
The second contested transaction for the acquisition of a share in the authorized capital of the company by the buyer is interrelated with the first transaction according to the dispute plot and its contestation does not make sense without contesting the first transaction, since the intent to collude must be present in all participants in the two transactions, the first transaction is a prerequisite for the second.
The above-mentioned option provided the debtor with only the opportunity to conclude a contract for the purchase and sale of a share in the authorized capital of the company in the future. But the legal position of the debtor and the second participant in the option grant transaction that existed during the term of the option indicates that the share in the authorized capital of the company that is currently of interest to the bankruptcy trustee has never belonged to the debtor.
Thus, the contested transactions are not harmful in terms of depriving the debtor of his real property. In essence, the dispute is stated that the debtor has lost something that did not belong to him in principle.
The debtor did not exercise the right to conclude the contract provided for by the option for a long period of its validity. At the time of the conclusion of the disputed transactions, the annual term of the option was coming to an end. There are no reasonable explanations for such inaction on the part of the debtor. The debtor did not show any intention to exercise the right to conclude a contract for almost the entire term of the option. The reality of such intentions is not seen from the available evidence.
The courts of two instances satisfied the application, concluding that there are grounds for recognizing a chain of transactions for the conclusion of an agreement on the provision of an option to conclude an agreement (option to conclude an agreement) for the purchase and sale of a share in the authorized capital of the company, an agreement on the termination of an agreement on the provision of an option to conclude an agreement (option to conclude an agreement) for the purchase and sale of a share in the authorized capital of the company, an agreement for the purchase and sale of a share in the authorized capital, invalid as an imaginary transaction.
The cassation refused to satisfy the claims, noting that the first of the contested transactions, the termination of the option agreement, is aimed at terminating obligations from a previously concluded agreement.
The second contested transaction for the acquisition of a share in the authorized capital of the company by the buyer is interrelated with the first transaction according to the dispute plot and its contestation does not make sense without contesting the first transaction, since the intent to collude must be present in all participants in the two transactions, the first transaction is a prerequisite for the second.
The above-mentioned option provided the debtor with only the opportunity to conclude a contract for the purchase and sale of a share in the authorized capital of the company in the future. But the legal position of the debtor and the second participant in the option grant transaction that existed during the term of the option indicates that the share in the authorized capital of the company that is currently of interest to the bankruptcy trustee has never belonged to the debtor.
Thus, the contested transactions are not harmful in terms of depriving the debtor of his real property. In essence, the dispute is stated that the debtor has lost something that did not belong to him in principle.
The debtor did not exercise the right to conclude the contract provided for by the option for a long period of its validity. At the time of the conclusion of the disputed transactions, the annual term of the option was coming to an end. There are no reasonable explanations for such inaction on the part of the debtor. The debtor did not show any intention to exercise the right to conclude a contract for almost the entire term of the option. The reality of such intentions is not seen from the available evidence.
30.10.2024
