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1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.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1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.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.
QUORUM AT THE FIRST MEETING OF CREDITORS AND THE VALUE OF OVERDUE CLAIMS 16+
The creditor filed a bankruptcy petition with the court (case No. A32-67565/23).
The first-instance court declared the debtor bankrupt, applied the procedure of bankruptcy proceedings, and proceeded from the following. The court established that during the observation period, the debtor's creditors' claims were included in the register of creditors' claims.
Based on the analysis of the debtor's financial condition, the conclusion on the presence (or absence) of signs of fake and intentional bankruptcy, and the conclusion on the presence (or absence) of grounds for challenging transactions, the first-instance court concluded that there was no possibility of restoring the debtor's solvency.
The court analyzed the debtor's assets and determined that the debtor's solvency had deteriorated. Since the documentation has not been transferred to the interim manager, there is no way to verify the presence (absence) of signs of deliberate bankruptcy or suspicious transactions of the debtor. According to the minutes of the creditors' meeting, it was decided to file a petition for the introduction of bankruptcy proceedings, which was satisfied by the court of first instance.
The appeal sent the matter back for reconsideration, based on the fact that the court had not fully examined the circumstances relevant to the case, had not assessed the reliability and completeness of the interim manager's report, and had not verified the existence of the debtor's accounts receivable with a number of organizations, which led to a decision that did not correspond to the actual circumstances.
The court of appeal also concluded that the rights of two creditors to participate in the first meeting of creditors and to choose the bankruptcy procedure had been violated, and that the creditors had effectively been deprived of their voting rights.
The cassation upheld the decision of the first instance, noting that the claims of the mentioned creditors were not included in the register on the date of the meeting due to the omission of the thirty-day deadline. Their votes did not objectively participate in the calculation of the quorum.
The creditor who attended the first meeting and was included in the register had 53% of the votes, which ensured the legitimacy of the meeting. The Court of Appeal mistakenly indicated that there was a prospect of replenishment of the bankruptcy estate. The court of first instance, recognizing the debtor as bankrupt and opening a bankruptcy proceedings against him, proceeded from the presence of signs of bankruptcy, the impossibility of repaying the debt to creditors, and the impossibility of restoring the debtor's solvency within the time limits established by law. The factual circumstances established by the court of first instance and the conclusions based on them correspond to the materials of the case, do not contradict them, and are based on the correct application of legal norms by the court.
The first-instance court declared the debtor bankrupt, applied the procedure of bankruptcy proceedings, and proceeded from the following. The court established that during the observation period, the debtor's creditors' claims were included in the register of creditors' claims.
Based on the analysis of the debtor's financial condition, the conclusion on the presence (or absence) of signs of fake and intentional bankruptcy, and the conclusion on the presence (or absence) of grounds for challenging transactions, the first-instance court concluded that there was no possibility of restoring the debtor's solvency.
The court analyzed the debtor's assets and determined that the debtor's solvency had deteriorated. Since the documentation has not been transferred to the interim manager, there is no way to verify the presence (absence) of signs of deliberate bankruptcy or suspicious transactions of the debtor. According to the minutes of the creditors' meeting, it was decided to file a petition for the introduction of bankruptcy proceedings, which was satisfied by the court of first instance.
The appeal sent the matter back for reconsideration, based on the fact that the court had not fully examined the circumstances relevant to the case, had not assessed the reliability and completeness of the interim manager's report, and had not verified the existence of the debtor's accounts receivable with a number of organizations, which led to a decision that did not correspond to the actual circumstances.
The court of appeal also concluded that the rights of two creditors to participate in the first meeting of creditors and to choose the bankruptcy procedure had been violated, and that the creditors had effectively been deprived of their voting rights.
The cassation upheld the decision of the first instance, noting that the claims of the mentioned creditors were not included in the register on the date of the meeting due to the omission of the thirty-day deadline. Their votes did not objectively participate in the calculation of the quorum.
The creditor who attended the first meeting and was included in the register had 53% of the votes, which ensured the legitimacy of the meeting. The Court of Appeal mistakenly indicated that there was a prospect of replenishment of the bankruptcy estate. The court of first instance, recognizing the debtor as bankrupt and opening a bankruptcy proceedings against him, proceeded from the presence of signs of bankruptcy, the impossibility of repaying the debt to creditors, and the impossibility of restoring the debtor's solvency within the time limits established by law. The factual circumstances established by the court of first instance and the conclusions based on them correspond to the materials of the case, do not contradict them, and are based on the correct application of legal norms by the court.
16.07.2026
