ONE SHOULD NOT CHANGE HORSES IN MIDSTREAM: THE COURT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TO CHANGE THE BANKRUPTCY MANAGER

ONE SHOULD NOT CHANGE HORSES IN MIDSTREAM: THE COURT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TO CHANGE THE BANKRUPTCY MANAGER

ONE SHOULD NOT CHANGE HORSES IN MIDSTREAM: THE COURT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TO CHANGE THE BANKRUPTCY MANAGER
The Commercial Court of the Far Eastern District has recently considered a case on the approval of the manager in the bankruptcy case of the debtor-citizen. As a result of consideration of the complaint, the decision of the appeal was canceled, indicating the mistakes that were made.

The fact is that during their meeting, the creditors decided not to drive the debtor to bankruptcy, but to approve a debt restructuring plan. The court of first instance did not have any questions, in connection with which the document was approved. As for the person who was to continue conducting the debt restructuring procedure, the court agreed on the previously elected manager.

Despite this, the court's decision was canceled by the appeal in terms of the manager's approval, and sent for reconsideration in the Commercial Court of the Khabarovsk Territory.

Having made such a decision, the board pointed out that the court not only did not consider the issue of appointing the manager on the merits, but also made a decision without taking into account the opinion of the debtor's creditors.

However, the district court disagreed with this position, indicating that the change of the manager in the bankruptcy case takes place taking into account the opinion of creditors in the situation of a change in the bankruptcy procedure, as well as upon the removal or dismissal of the manager.

At the meeting of creditors, the latter decided not to proceed to the next bankruptcy procedure - the sale of the debtor's property, but saw it possible to approve the restructuring plan, which means that the procedure remained the same for which the current manager was approved.

Consequently, in the case under consideration, there was no legal need to replace the manager (Resolution No. F03-5551 / 2020 in the case of January 14, 2021).


15.02.2021