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1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.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1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.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.
PROCESSUAL RISKS OF CHALLENGING MULTIPLE-STEP TRANSACTIONS WITH AN ACTIVE
The manager filed a lawsuit to challenge a chain of transactions that resulted in the transfer of ownership of the debtor's property (case No. A47-11264/23).
By recognizing the actions of the debtor's property disposition as invalid transactions and applying the consequences of their invalidity, the courts of two instances proceeded from the lack of evidence of the company's performance of a counter-supply under the transaction. The courts also noted the atypical behavior of the participants in civil circulation due to the absence of title documents confirming the transfer of ownership of the dispossessed property to the company.
In addition, there is no evidence in the case that the disputed equipment was offered for free sale to an unlimited number of persons by the debtor, which would indicate that the public was not interested in the debtor.
The cassation court sent the dispute back for a new trial, citing the applicant's arguments about the vehicle's defects and the company's and the end buyer's expenses for repairing the purchased property, based on the evidence presented by the latter to the appellate court, including the vehicle's technical inspection report, which was an appendix to the disputed 2024 sales contract, and the documents for purchasing spare parts.
Having attached the specified documents, the court of appeal did not actually give them a proper legal assessment, and did not provide the grounds for which the specified evidence was not taken into account when determining the marketability of the terms of the disputed contract.
At the same time, given that the technical condition of the alienated property was not assessed when conducting an assessment of the market value of the vehicle, the examination of the additional evidence submitted by the citizen may significantly affect the conclusion of the courts regarding the equivalence of the counter-provision in the transactions of 2020 and 2024. At the same time, neither the court of first instance nor the court of appeal examined the circumstances of the disputed transactions in full and properly, nor the motives for acquiring the disputed property and its subsequent resale.
Based on the above, the appealed court decisions cannot be considered sufficiently substantiated and motivated, and the courts' conclusions about the existence of a set of grounds for recognizing the chain of transactions for the alienation of the debtor's property as invalid are premature, without properly examining the significant circumstances of the case and fully examining the submitted evidence.
The courts' conclusions about the inequity of the reciprocal provision by the citizen and the defendants' interest in the debtor are formal and premature.
The court of cassation concluded that the court acts in question actually invalidated the transactions of the debtor's son, who was not involved in the case as a co-defendant. Since the first-instance court actually declared invalid a set of interrelated transactions, which included the actions of the debtor's son to acquire and subsequently dispose of the disputed property, the dispute could not be resolved in accordance with the procedural laws without the participation of all parties involved in these transactions.
By recognizing the actions of the debtor's property disposition as invalid transactions and applying the consequences of their invalidity, the courts of two instances proceeded from the lack of evidence of the company's performance of a counter-supply under the transaction. The courts also noted the atypical behavior of the participants in civil circulation due to the absence of title documents confirming the transfer of ownership of the dispossessed property to the company.
In addition, there is no evidence in the case that the disputed equipment was offered for free sale to an unlimited number of persons by the debtor, which would indicate that the public was not interested in the debtor.
The cassation court sent the dispute back for a new trial, citing the applicant's arguments about the vehicle's defects and the company's and the end buyer's expenses for repairing the purchased property, based on the evidence presented by the latter to the appellate court, including the vehicle's technical inspection report, which was an appendix to the disputed 2024 sales contract, and the documents for purchasing spare parts.
Having attached the specified documents, the court of appeal did not actually give them a proper legal assessment, and did not provide the grounds for which the specified evidence was not taken into account when determining the marketability of the terms of the disputed contract.
At the same time, given that the technical condition of the alienated property was not assessed when conducting an assessment of the market value of the vehicle, the examination of the additional evidence submitted by the citizen may significantly affect the conclusion of the courts regarding the equivalence of the counter-provision in the transactions of 2020 and 2024. At the same time, neither the court of first instance nor the court of appeal examined the circumstances of the disputed transactions in full and properly, nor the motives for acquiring the disputed property and its subsequent resale.
Based on the above, the appealed court decisions cannot be considered sufficiently substantiated and motivated, and the courts' conclusions about the existence of a set of grounds for recognizing the chain of transactions for the alienation of the debtor's property as invalid are premature, without properly examining the significant circumstances of the case and fully examining the submitted evidence.
The courts' conclusions about the inequity of the reciprocal provision by the citizen and the defendants' interest in the debtor are formal and premature.
The court of cassation concluded that the court acts in question actually invalidated the transactions of the debtor's son, who was not involved in the case as a co-defendant. Since the first-instance court actually declared invalid a set of interrelated transactions, which included the actions of the debtor's son to acquire and subsequently dispose of the disputed property, the dispute could not be resolved in accordance with the procedural laws without the participation of all parties involved in these transactions.
09.07.2026
