SUPREME COURT: IT IS POSSIBLE TO BALANCE EVEN IF THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF DEBT

In the framework of the bankruptcy case (No. A56-108855/19), the manager filed an application to challenge the notice of offset. A subcontract agreement was concluded between the debtor and the defendant, under which, as the debtor believes, the defendant had a debt, in connection with which he appealed to the court with a claim for its recovery.

The defendant, on the basis of the accrued penalty, sent a notice of offset to the debtor, which was disputed by the manager.

The courts of three instances agreed with the applicant, noting that there is a dispute between the parties about collecting debts in favor of the debtor for the work performed, therefore there are disagreements between the parties regarding the existence of grounds for calculating the penalty and the correctness of calculating its amount. Therefore, in the opinion of the courts, the defendant has the right to file a counterclaim within the framework of the said case and to balance the counterclaims.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not agree with the lower instances and refused to satisfy the claims of the manager, pointing out that in the notification the defendant, in fact, stated that there was no debt on his part to pay for the work actually performed under the subcontract, thereby setting out his own vision of the result of reconciliation of settlements under the terminated contract.

Since the company, in addition to determining the closing balance, did not perform any other actions, the bankruptcy trustee's application was not subject to satisfaction.

In order to verify the arguments of the debtor's manager about the existence of a debt on the company's side, there is no need to invalidate a unilateral notification, since it does not have a pre-established force on the issue of the amount of mutual grants of the parties to subcontracting relations.