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.
NOT EVERYONE CAN CHALLENGE DEALS
The debtor's participant applied to the court for invalidation of the settlement agreement (case no. A41-998/22).
In granting the application, the courts of two instances pointed out the absence in the case file of primary documents confirming the transfer of equipment by the debtor to the company, taking into account the signs of affiliation of the parties to the assignment agreement, they concluded that this transaction was not related to real business activities and had no purpose of making a profit, but was committed in order to cover up another transaction for the gratuitous withdrawal of the debtor's liquid assets.
The courts also pointed out that, given the lack of evidence that the debtor owed the company a promissory note as a result of the contested transaction, the debtor and his creditors suffered harm.
In addition, the courts took into account that the parties had not disclosed the economic feasibility of concluding the disputed agreement, since the defendant's main activity was renting and managing his own or leased real estate, and there was no evidence of dismantling, exporting the disputed equipment, registering it on their balance sheet, as well as producing beer on the disputed equipment.
The cassation refused to satisfy the application, noting that the case file does not contain evidence confirming the inconsistency of the will of the parties to the disputed transaction with the content of the will set out in the contested agreement, as well as evidence of signs that would clearly indicate the lack of intention of the parties to the contested agreement to fulfill it.
Moreover, challenging the settlement agreement, the plaintiff did not provide any arguments about fraud, pointing to the unequal value of the counter-provision of the transaction due to the underestimated value of the equipment transferred by the debtor, and the transaction between affiliated companies in order to harm the company's creditors. It follows from the case file that the plaintiff applied to the court with a statement challenging the transaction, skipping the one-year deadline for challenging the transaction.
At the same time, concluding that the disputed property was in the possession of a third party, the courts did not provide references to specific evidence, did not indicate the coincidence of individually defined features of the equipment. The mechanisms described in the bankruptcy legislation are intended primarily to protect the debtor's independent creditors, but the plaintiff is not.
The plaintiff, as a participant in the company with a share of 50% of the authorized capital, is the controlling person of the debtor and has been held vicariously liable for the debtor's obligations. In this case, the plaintiff is not a creditor of the debtor, which has the characteristics specified in the bankruptcy law. Thus, the courts had no grounds to satisfy the application of the company's participant for invalidation of the settlement agreement.
Photo: Freepik
In granting the application, the courts of two instances pointed out the absence in the case file of primary documents confirming the transfer of equipment by the debtor to the company, taking into account the signs of affiliation of the parties to the assignment agreement, they concluded that this transaction was not related to real business activities and had no purpose of making a profit, but was committed in order to cover up another transaction for the gratuitous withdrawal of the debtor's liquid assets.
The courts also pointed out that, given the lack of evidence that the debtor owed the company a promissory note as a result of the contested transaction, the debtor and his creditors suffered harm.
In addition, the courts took into account that the parties had not disclosed the economic feasibility of concluding the disputed agreement, since the defendant's main activity was renting and managing his own or leased real estate, and there was no evidence of dismantling, exporting the disputed equipment, registering it on their balance sheet, as well as producing beer on the disputed equipment.
The cassation refused to satisfy the application, noting that the case file does not contain evidence confirming the inconsistency of the will of the parties to the disputed transaction with the content of the will set out in the contested agreement, as well as evidence of signs that would clearly indicate the lack of intention of the parties to the contested agreement to fulfill it.
Moreover, challenging the settlement agreement, the plaintiff did not provide any arguments about fraud, pointing to the unequal value of the counter-provision of the transaction due to the underestimated value of the equipment transferred by the debtor, and the transaction between affiliated companies in order to harm the company's creditors. It follows from the case file that the plaintiff applied to the court with a statement challenging the transaction, skipping the one-year deadline for challenging the transaction.
At the same time, concluding that the disputed property was in the possession of a third party, the courts did not provide references to specific evidence, did not indicate the coincidence of individually defined features of the equipment. The mechanisms described in the bankruptcy legislation are intended primarily to protect the debtor's independent creditors, but the plaintiff is not.
The plaintiff, as a participant in the company with a share of 50% of the authorized capital, is the controlling person of the debtor and has been held vicariously liable for the debtor's obligations. In this case, the plaintiff is not a creditor of the debtor, which has the characteristics specified in the bankruptcy law. Thus, the courts had no grounds to satisfy the application of the company's participant for invalidation of the settlement agreement.
Photo: Freepik
01.09.2025
