Supreme Court of Russia indicated what should not be done when changing a bankruptcy trustee

Supreme Court of Russia indicated what should not be done when changing a bankruptcy trustee

Supreme Court of Russia indicated what should not be done when changing a bankruptcy trustee
The highest court considered the case on the complaint of two creditors of the debtor, who were dissatisfied with the decisions of the lower courts.  The question concerned the change of the bankruptcy trustee in connection with bringing the latter to administrative responsibility.

Initially, the application was filed by the SRO, which proposed a new candidate. In the court of first instance, the claim was satisfied, but the appeal considered this position to be incorrect and sent the case back for reconsideration. The disputed judicial act, in turn, was canceled by the district court, securing the position of the first instance.

In the first instance, the judge first scheduled a meeting on the election of a candidate for a trustee for one date, notifying the parties, after which he issued another ruling with the process being carried out without calling the parties and in a short time.

The publication of the judicial act on the new date of the trial took place after it had been held, which violated the rights of the parties and deprived them of any opportunity to influence the outcome of the case.

After that, the issue had been considered by the court of appeal and the district court, and the new trustee appointed by the court repeatedly appointed a meeting of creditors and cancelled later.

As a result, by the time the complaint was considered in the district court, the meeting had not taken place, and the panel of judges made the creditors guilty of this. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not agree with this formulation of the issue.

The Economic Board pointed out that the responsibility for not holding the meeting should not be shifted to bona fide creditors who relied on the trustee to organize it.

As a result, the decisions of the court of first instance and the district court were cancelled, and the appeals were upheld (decision No. 303-ES14-4717 (16, 17) dated January 20, 2022 in case ¹ A73-822 / 2013).

 

 

 

 


31.03.2022