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.
MORATORIUM AND CONTESTING TRANSACTIONS
The manager appealed to the court with a demand to invalidate transactions involving the transfer of the debtor's funds in favor of the company (case no. A40-225803/22).
Partially satisfying the application, the courts of the two instances proceeded from providing them with sufficient evidence of the existence of grounds for recognizing the disputed transfers as invalid transactions.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in part, noting that, since the debtor's bankruptcy case was initiated within three months after the expiration of the moratorium, the periods of suspicion for the debtor's transactions are calculated from the date of the moratorium, and not the date of the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings.
The issue of the defendant's awareness, as an independent creditor, on the date of the disputed payment, of the presence on the debtor's side of signs of insolvency and the presence of signs of preferential satisfaction of his claims, has not been investigated when considering this separate dispute.
The courts of the first and appellate instances did not take into account the defendant's arguments that the payment term under the contract for the disputed payment does not differ from the usual terms during which settlements were made between the defendant and the debtor.
The burden of proving that the transaction price exceeded one percent of the value of the debtor's assets lies with the person challenging the transaction, while the bankruptcy trustee has not provided such evidence.
By itself, the conclusion of the arbitration courts of the first and appellate instances on the existence of a delay in payment is irrelevant in relation to the procedure for challenging transactions made during the moratorium period, due to a different presumption of proof.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure that the debtor is able to conduct normal business activities during the moratorium period, which in turn provides increased legal guarantees to its counterparties.
Photo: Freepik
Partially satisfying the application, the courts of the two instances proceeded from providing them with sufficient evidence of the existence of grounds for recognizing the disputed transfers as invalid transactions.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in part, noting that, since the debtor's bankruptcy case was initiated within three months after the expiration of the moratorium, the periods of suspicion for the debtor's transactions are calculated from the date of the moratorium, and not the date of the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings.
The issue of the defendant's awareness, as an independent creditor, on the date of the disputed payment, of the presence on the debtor's side of signs of insolvency and the presence of signs of preferential satisfaction of his claims, has not been investigated when considering this separate dispute.
The courts of the first and appellate instances did not take into account the defendant's arguments that the payment term under the contract for the disputed payment does not differ from the usual terms during which settlements were made between the defendant and the debtor.
The burden of proving that the transaction price exceeded one percent of the value of the debtor's assets lies with the person challenging the transaction, while the bankruptcy trustee has not provided such evidence.
By itself, the conclusion of the arbitration courts of the first and appellate instances on the existence of a delay in payment is irrelevant in relation to the procedure for challenging transactions made during the moratorium period, due to a different presumption of proof.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure that the debtor is able to conduct normal business activities during the moratorium period, which in turn provides increased legal guarantees to its counterparties.
Photo: Freepik
28.07.2025
