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.
RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT OF RIGHTS OF CREDITORS AND CO-OWNERS IN CASE OF BANKRUPTCY OF A CITIZEN
The citizen applied to the court to resolve the differences that had arisen between him and the debtor's financial manager, demanding to determine the manager's obligation to conclude a purchase and sale agreement with the citizen for a share in ownership of the property (case no. A56-13435/20).
The court of first instance established the preferential right of a citizen to buy out a share, as well as the fact that the manager violated the procedure for notifying the co-owner of the upcoming auction. Taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, having established that the auction was not contested, the court granted the citizen's application and ordered the financial manager to conclude a purchase and sale agreement for a share of the property with the citizen on the terms determined by the results of the auction.
The appeal refused to satisfy the application, since the pre-emptive right to purchase a share is realized at a cost equal to the initial price of the property at auction. At the same time, the court took into account the legal position of the highest court on the need to offer the equity owners to exercise their pre-emptive right to purchase before the start of the auction at a price equal to the initial price at the first auction. Since such an offer was not made after the start of the auction, the advantage is lost, and the sale must be made at auction in a competitive environment.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance, concluding that the position of the Court of Appeal had failed to take into account important circumstances. In particular, the regulation on the procedure for the sale of the debtor's property, approved by the court, did not contain conditions for the exercise of the right of pre-emption. There is no evidence that the financial managers have sent a written proposal to the co-owner before the start of the auction to exercise their pre-emptive right to purchase at a price equal to the initial price at the auction.
Thus, the court of first instance lawfully obliged the manager to conclude a contract on the terms determined by the results of the auction. The court also noted a violation by the manager of the obligation to notify the co-owner of the possibility of acquiring a share and participating in the auction.
Photo: Freepik
The court of first instance established the preferential right of a citizen to buy out a share, as well as the fact that the manager violated the procedure for notifying the co-owner of the upcoming auction. Taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, having established that the auction was not contested, the court granted the citizen's application and ordered the financial manager to conclude a purchase and sale agreement for a share of the property with the citizen on the terms determined by the results of the auction.
The appeal refused to satisfy the application, since the pre-emptive right to purchase a share is realized at a cost equal to the initial price of the property at auction. At the same time, the court took into account the legal position of the highest court on the need to offer the equity owners to exercise their pre-emptive right to purchase before the start of the auction at a price equal to the initial price at the first auction. Since such an offer was not made after the start of the auction, the advantage is lost, and the sale must be made at auction in a competitive environment.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance, concluding that the position of the Court of Appeal had failed to take into account important circumstances. In particular, the regulation on the procedure for the sale of the debtor's property, approved by the court, did not contain conditions for the exercise of the right of pre-emption. There is no evidence that the financial managers have sent a written proposal to the co-owner before the start of the auction to exercise their pre-emptive right to purchase at a price equal to the initial price at the auction.
Thus, the court of first instance lawfully obliged the manager to conclude a contract on the terms determined by the results of the auction. The court also noted a violation by the manager of the obligation to notify the co-owner of the possibility of acquiring a share and participating in the auction.
Photo: Freepik
03.09.2025
