RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
21/07/2026
Tuesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
21 July 
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
21 July
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
PERIOD OF LIMITATED LIABILITY FOR RESTITUTIONAL AND RECOVERED CLAIMS IN BANKRUPTCY
The creditor filed a claim with the court to include the debtor's requirements in the register (case No. A23-1141/20).
Refusing to satisfy the creditor's application, the courts concluded that the applicant had missed the statute of limitations for filing a claim for recovery of funds from the debtor, as well as that the applicant had committed abuse and that there were grounds for applying estoppel to the disputed legal relations.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new trial, noting that the court's ruling dated 27.09.2024, which was upheld by the court of appeal and the court of district, had invalidated the transaction. The consequences of the transaction's invalidity were applied in the form of the creditor's obligation to return to the company everything received under the transaction.
The creditor has fulfilled the court's order to return everything received under a single transaction, but the company's obligation to the creditor under the share purchase agreement has remained unfulfilled due to the invalidation of the transactions made to pay for the share.
Despite the fact that the court did not specify the consequences of the debtor's transfer of property to the creditor in exchange for payment of the share, such consequences actually arise under the law.
Since the creditor's claim under the share sale agreement was considered to have been restored as of the date of the court's ruling on 27.09.2024, which invalidated the transaction, and given that the creditor filed its claim on 21.05.2025, there was no reason for the courts to conclude that the statute of limitations had expired.
In this case, taking into account the specifics of the legal relations caused by the defendant's unscrupulous behavior in the transaction, but at the same time, the existence of a counter-provision from such a person to the debtor, the law provides for liability in the form of satisfaction of the requirements of the person who committed abuse in the transaction, after the third-priority creditors.
The judicial panel also considered it necessary to note that in this bankruptcy case, the requirements of foreign companies were included in the register. The claims of these foreign persons amount to more than 98% of the amount of claims included in the debtor's register, which allows for the bankruptcy procedure of a legal entity resident in the Russian Federation to be controlled by foreign persons.
In this regard, given that the district court has been notified by the prosecutor's office of its entry into the case, the court of first instance should consider the entry of the prosecutor's office into the case.
Refusing to satisfy the creditor's application, the courts concluded that the applicant had missed the statute of limitations for filing a claim for recovery of funds from the debtor, as well as that the applicant had committed abuse and that there were grounds for applying estoppel to the disputed legal relations.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new trial, noting that the court's ruling dated 27.09.2024, which was upheld by the court of appeal and the court of district, had invalidated the transaction. The consequences of the transaction's invalidity were applied in the form of the creditor's obligation to return to the company everything received under the transaction.
The creditor has fulfilled the court's order to return everything received under a single transaction, but the company's obligation to the creditor under the share purchase agreement has remained unfulfilled due to the invalidation of the transactions made to pay for the share.
Despite the fact that the court did not specify the consequences of the debtor's transfer of property to the creditor in exchange for payment of the share, such consequences actually arise under the law.
Since the creditor's claim under the share sale agreement was considered to have been restored as of the date of the court's ruling on 27.09.2024, which invalidated the transaction, and given that the creditor filed its claim on 21.05.2025, there was no reason for the courts to conclude that the statute of limitations had expired.
In this case, taking into account the specifics of the legal relations caused by the defendant's unscrupulous behavior in the transaction, but at the same time, the existence of a counter-provision from such a person to the debtor, the law provides for liability in the form of satisfaction of the requirements of the person who committed abuse in the transaction, after the third-priority creditors.
The judicial panel also considered it necessary to note that in this bankruptcy case, the requirements of foreign companies were included in the register. The claims of these foreign persons amount to more than 98% of the amount of claims included in the debtor's register, which allows for the bankruptcy procedure of a legal entity resident in the Russian Federation to be controlled by foreign persons.
In this regard, given that the district court has been notified by the prosecutor's office of its entry into the case, the court of first instance should consider the entry of the prosecutor's office into the case.
20.07.2026
