RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
16/05/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
16 May 
1970 The Russian poet Joseph Brodsky was ordered to leave the USSR.
1970 The Russian poet Joseph Brodsky was ordered to leave the USSR.
1970 The decision was made to begin the “cultural revolution” in China.
1970 The decision was made to begin the “cultural revolution” in China.
1970 The first film awards, which were later called the Oscars, were issued in Hollywood.
1970 The first film awards, which were later called the Oscars, were issued in Hollywood.
16 May
1970 The Russian poet Joseph Brodsky was ordered to leave the USSR.
1970 The Russian poet Joseph Brodsky was ordered to leave the USSR.
1970 The decision was made to begin the “cultural revolution” in China.
1970 The decision was made to begin the “cultural revolution” in China.
1970 The first film awards, which were later called the Oscars, were issued in Hollywood.
1970 The first film awards, which were later called the Oscars, were issued in Hollywood.
PROPER NOTIFICATION IS WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DELIVERY OF JUDICIAL CORRESPONDENCE ARE CHECKED.
The manager applied to the court to challenge the loan agreements, collateral and the settlement agreement (case no. A40-143537/17).
The courts of three instances granted the application, recognizing the arguments of the manager as justified.
The Court of Appeal took into account the defendant's arguments about the limitation period, but considered them unacceptable, since the defendant did not declare the application of the limitation period in the court of first instance.
The Supreme Court referred the defendant's complaint to the board for consideration, noting the arguments about the improper notification. The courts did not establish the circumstances of the actual attempt to serve the letter to the defendant and the reasons for his failure to attend court sessions. There is no assessment of whether the defendant has assumed the responsibility of independently tracking the progress of the case and the associated risks.
Also, in the opinion of the instance, the court of appeal, when verifying the argument on the limitation period, did not take into account the defendant's justification for his ignorance of the existence of a dispute and the circumstances of the debtor's bankruptcy that are significant for calculating the limitation period.
The courts of three instances granted the application, recognizing the arguments of the manager as justified.
The Court of Appeal took into account the defendant's arguments about the limitation period, but considered them unacceptable, since the defendant did not declare the application of the limitation period in the court of first instance.
The Supreme Court referred the defendant's complaint to the board for consideration, noting the arguments about the improper notification. The courts did not establish the circumstances of the actual attempt to serve the letter to the defendant and the reasons for his failure to attend court sessions. There is no assessment of whether the defendant has assumed the responsibility of independently tracking the progress of the case and the associated risks.
Also, in the opinion of the instance, the court of appeal, when verifying the argument on the limitation period, did not take into account the defendant's justification for his ignorance of the existence of a dispute and the circumstances of the debtor's bankruptcy that are significant for calculating the limitation period.
07.04.2025
