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.
PAYMENT OR PREFERENCE?
The manager appealed to the court with a demand to invalidate payments made by the debtor in favor of the entrepreneur (case no. A40-14241/22).
Partially satisfying the application, the court of first instance found that the application for declaring the debtor bankrupt was accepted on 02/01/2022, and the disputed payments were made between 10/18/2021 and 03/28/2022, which falls under the period of suspicion. At the time of making payments, the debtor had outstanding obligations to other creditors. The Court concluded that these payments led to a preference for one creditor over other creditors, violating the principle of priority of claims.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance. The disputed payments were made in fulfillment of obligations under subcontracting agreements and were of a targeted nature aimed at fulfilling the actual economic activity. The presented evidence confirms that the payments were a counter-provision for the construction and installation work actually performed. The bankruptcy trustee did not provide evidence of the affiliation of the debtor and the entrepreneur or the dishonesty of the counterparty. However, for payments made within one month before or after the bankruptcy application is accepted, only the circumstances provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 61.3 of the Bankruptcy Law are sufficient.
The cassation overturned the decision of the appeal in part, upholding the ruling of the first instance, and was guided by the following. The Court of Cassation agreed with the conclusions of the Court of Appeal regarding the refusal to invalidate the first payment, since the entrepreneur's awareness of the debtor's insolvency has not been proven. At the same time, the court did not agree with the refusal to satisfy the claims for invalidation of payments made within one month before or after accepting the bankruptcy application. The existence of circumstances of preferential satisfaction is sufficient to invalidate these payments.
In addition, disputed payments exceed one percent of the value of the debtor's assets as of the reporting date preceding the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings. Thus, there are no grounds for canceling the ruling of the court of first instance regarding these payments.
Photo: Freepik
Partially satisfying the application, the court of first instance found that the application for declaring the debtor bankrupt was accepted on 02/01/2022, and the disputed payments were made between 10/18/2021 and 03/28/2022, which falls under the period of suspicion. At the time of making payments, the debtor had outstanding obligations to other creditors. The Court concluded that these payments led to a preference for one creditor over other creditors, violating the principle of priority of claims.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance. The disputed payments were made in fulfillment of obligations under subcontracting agreements and were of a targeted nature aimed at fulfilling the actual economic activity. The presented evidence confirms that the payments were a counter-provision for the construction and installation work actually performed. The bankruptcy trustee did not provide evidence of the affiliation of the debtor and the entrepreneur or the dishonesty of the counterparty. However, for payments made within one month before or after the bankruptcy application is accepted, only the circumstances provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 61.3 of the Bankruptcy Law are sufficient.
The cassation overturned the decision of the appeal in part, upholding the ruling of the first instance, and was guided by the following. The Court of Cassation agreed with the conclusions of the Court of Appeal regarding the refusal to invalidate the first payment, since the entrepreneur's awareness of the debtor's insolvency has not been proven. At the same time, the court did not agree with the refusal to satisfy the claims for invalidation of payments made within one month before or after accepting the bankruptcy application. The existence of circumstances of preferential satisfaction is sufficient to invalidate these payments.
In addition, disputed payments exceed one percent of the value of the debtor's assets as of the reporting date preceding the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings. Thus, there are no grounds for canceling the ruling of the court of first instance regarding these payments.
Photo: Freepik
25.11.2025
