Supreme Court of Russia considered it unreasonable to involve a third-party organization in bidding

The Economic Board considered the case on the complaint of a bankruptcy trustee and creditors of the debtor, who opposed the agreement concluded with a third-party organization on holding bidding within the framework of the debtor's insolvency case.  At the same time, the company, which carried out the sale of the property of insolvent company, applied to the court with a claim for payment of remuneration due to it.

The cases were combined into one procedure, the fate of which changed dramatically after being considered by the Supreme Court of Russia.

Prior to that, all three instances unanimously supported the company holding the auction and satisfied its claims for payment of remuneration. Its size, by the way, was 63 million rubles.

The position of the lower instances was that the person involved in the auction had duly fulfilled his obligations, and that the auction was approved by the debtor's pledged creditor.

However, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered this position to be incorrect, outlining a number of theses. The Economic Board noted that when considering the issue of attracting a third-party organization to the auction, the courts should establish the legality of such an action, as well as the reasonableness of the amount of remuneration established for it.

In addition, the Supreme Court of Russia drew attention to the fact of possible affiliation of the company that held the auction with a person who previously was the bankruptcy trustee of a debtor.

This fact was not challenged in the course of the court hearings, but was not taken into account by the judges of lower instances.

As a result of the consideration of the case, the application for recognition of the agreement concluded with a third party on organization of bidding as invalid was recognized justified. The multimillion-dollar remuneration claim of the company that held the auction was rejected (ruling of October 7, 2021 No. 305-ES16-20151 (14, 15) in case № A40-168854 / 2014).