RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
08/09/2024
Sunday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
8 September 
1941 The blockade of Leningrad began.
1429 The storming of Paris by the troops of Jeanne D'Arc.
1380 The Tatar-Mongol troops were defeated by the Russian troops in the Battle of Kulikovo.
8 September
1941 The blockade of Leningrad began.
1429 The storming of Paris by the troops of Jeanne D'Arc.
1380 The Tatar-Mongol troops were defeated by the Russian troops in the Battle of Kulikovo.
IMITATION OF ORDINARY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
The manager applied to the court to challenge the debtor's payments in favor of the defendant (case no. A46-6576/21). In refusing to satisfy the application, the courts of two instances were guided by the fact that the payments were made within the framework of ordinary business activities in fulfillment of real obligations.
The district court sent the dispute for a new review and drew attention to the fact that the period of making the disputed payments corresponds to the periods of suspicion:
• The courts found that at the date of the disputed payments, the debtor had unfulfilled monetary obligations to creditors.
• The conclusion of the courts on the affiliation of the debtor and the defendant is based on a set of established circumstances and is not disputed by the persons involved in the consideration of this separate dispute.
• At the same time, the arguments about the lack of proof of the reality of the transportation relationship due to the lack of shipping documents and the economic justification for involving the defendant in the transportation of goods did not receive a proper judicial assessment.
• At the same time, they did not assess the circumstances in support of judgments about the modeling by the beneficiaries of the debtor and the defendant of a situation in which funds are transferred to an affiliated person in the presence of unfulfilled obligations to independent creditors allegedly under normal business conditions: affiliation of the debtor and the defendant; creation of the defendant during the debtor's insolvency; transfer of employees of the debtor and duplication of its activities by the defendant; free movement of funds between the debtor and the defendant, as well as within the group of companies as a whole; increased expenses of the debtor as a result of concluding contracts with the defendant.
The district court sent the dispute for a new review and drew attention to the fact that the period of making the disputed payments corresponds to the periods of suspicion:
• The courts found that at the date of the disputed payments, the debtor had unfulfilled monetary obligations to creditors.
• The conclusion of the courts on the affiliation of the debtor and the defendant is based on a set of established circumstances and is not disputed by the persons involved in the consideration of this separate dispute.
• At the same time, the arguments about the lack of proof of the reality of the transportation relationship due to the lack of shipping documents and the economic justification for involving the defendant in the transportation of goods did not receive a proper judicial assessment.
• At the same time, they did not assess the circumstances in support of judgments about the modeling by the beneficiaries of the debtor and the defendant of a situation in which funds are transferred to an affiliated person in the presence of unfulfilled obligations to independent creditors allegedly under normal business conditions: affiliation of the debtor and the defendant; creation of the defendant during the debtor's insolvency; transfer of employees of the debtor and duplication of its activities by the defendant; free movement of funds between the debtor and the defendant, as well as within the group of companies as a whole; increased expenses of the debtor as a result of concluding contracts with the defendant.
11.07.2024
