Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated mistakes when liquidating a creditor

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated mistakes when liquidating a creditor

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated mistakes when liquidating a creditor
The Economic board of the Supreme Court of Russia considered the case on the complaint of an assignee, who acquired the debt to the bankrupt from the company which was subsequently liquidated.  The court of first instance and the district court considered the liquidation of company to be a sufficient ground for excluding the debt from the register of creditors’ claims, but the court of appeal and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not agree with this position.

The application to remove the claim of liquidated creditor from the register was initiated by the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor, who considered that since the company did not exist, there was no debt to it.

This position was supported by the judge of first instance, however, the appeal stated that since there was a concession of the demand, it could not be excluded from the register, but a procedural succession must have been carried out.

However, the district court noted that neither the parties nor the court had any information about the creditor's successor, and the assignee himself had been inactive for a long time and did not claim his rights. On this basis, three judges canceled the decision of the court of appeal, leaving the judgment of the first instance in force.

When considering the same issue, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation noted that the mere fact of exclusion of the creditor from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities was not a sufficient ground for termination of its claims against the debtor. At the same time, the procedure for excluding a creditor's claim from the register of creditors’ claims is regulated by law, and a number of grounds are provided for satisfying such an application. In addition, the court should establish the unconditional circumstance on the basis of which such an exception occurs in similar cases.

The result of the consideration of the complaint was the cancellation of the decisions of the court of first instance and the district court and the upholding of the judicial act of the court of appeal (decision ¹ 307-ES18-15392 (3) of December 20, 2021).


26.01.2022