Supreme Court of Russia indicated what the courts should take into account when including debts in the register of creditors’ claims

The highest court considered the case on the complaint of one of the debtor's creditors, who expressed disagreement with the position of the lower instances.  The judges consistently satisfied another creditor's claim to have the debt owed to him included in the register of creditors’ claims, despite the applicant's objections.  However, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation made a decision to reconsider the case, having found a significant error.

The disputed debt was based on a suretyship agreement, under which the bankrupt company vouched for a third party, guaranteeing the performance of the agreement of sale and purchase. The agreement was not fulfilled, the debt arose, the court satisfied the demand to recover it from the guarantor, and the creditor came as part of the bankruptcy proceedings, with a decision that had entered into force.

The courts of three instances found the claims valid and satisfied the lawsuit.

However, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation drew attention to a rather important aspect, which was consistently stated by the creditor challenging the judicial acts.

The fact was that the disputed guarantee arose several years after the party to the contract had failed to fulfill its obligations. Moreover, at that time the debtor had already entered the surveillance. When considering the question of the validity of collecting debts from the guarantor in court, no objections were received from the latter.

The combination of these circumstances led the creditor to the idea that the debt was formed intentionally, in order to gain control over the debtor's bankruptcy procedure. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation agreed with such an opinion, pointing out that, when considering the issue of including a debt in the register of creditors’ claims, the courts should take into account the circumstances of its occurrence in order to possibly subordinate the creditor's claims (decision № 303-ES21-16354 of January 20, 2022).