We know everything about bankruptcy
08/04/2025
Tuesday
8 April 
1935|
Supreme Court of Russia indicated criteria for challenging the debtor's transaction
The highest court of Russia considered the case on the complaint of a buyer of the debtor's property, whom the district court suspected of being aware of the illegality of the transaction. At the same time, two lower instances did not see malicious intent in the applicant's actions, considering him a bona fide buyer. The Supreme Court put an end to the case.
A year before the initiation of insolvency proceedings and two years before the company was declared bankrupt and bankruptcy proceedings were opened, the future debtor and an individual signed a contract for the sale of a non-residential building.
The cost of the property was 30% lower than the average price in the market, which confused the board of the district court.
Three judges noted that such a decrease in value should have alerted the buyer, which indirectly may indicate his awareness of the debtor's desire to withdraw liquid property.
However, the arguments of the court of first instance and the court of appeal were different. The judges analyzed the buyer's precautions both before and during the transaction and came to the conclusion that he acted in good faith and prudently, within the limits of an ordinary market transaction. At the same time, the indicated difference in the cost of the subject of the contract, in the opinion of the servants of Themis and taking into account other circumstances, was not decisive.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation came to the same conclusion, pointing out that the criterion for recognizing a transaction as invalid could be a multiple discrepancy between the price of property compared to its market value.
In the case under consideration and taking into account other circumstances of the buyer's behavior, it was premature to speak of his bad faith.
As a result, the decision of the district court was canceled, and the judicial acts of the first and appeal instances were upheld (decision № 305-ES21-19707 of December 23, 2021).
