RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
The amount of the official salary as a subject of legal dispute
The manager applied to the court for invalidation of the transaction on the transfer of funds by the debtor in favor of the citizen (case no. A50-21369/21).
The court of first instance refused to satisfy the manager's application for invalidation of transactions and the application of the consequences of their invalidity due to the lack of evidence of the grounds for challenging them.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the contested transactions were made during the period of suspicion established by the bankruptcy law in order to harm the property rights of the debtor's creditors if the debtor has debts to creditors, including wages to employees, which are subsequently included in the register of creditors' claims. At the same time, the court took into account that the evidence of imposing additional duties on a citizen has not been presented; the debtor has partially stopped fulfilling his monetary obligations to employees and creditors.; there are no documents in the case confirming the validity of the accrual and payment of the bonus; a multiple increase in the official salary was made only in respect of a citizen.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new appeal hearing. According to the court, the offense imputed to the citizen was fully covered by the provisions of the bankruptcy law. The fact that the citizen fulfilled his labor duties by the persons involved in the case has not been refuted. The citizen referred to the fact that, in fact, the increase in wages was related to indexation, and he performed his labor functions in good faith. The bankruptcy trustee has not proved otherwise.
As the court noted, the specifics of the employment relationship is that when concluding an employment contract, there is no need to determine the exact scope and amount of counter-performance on the part of the employee. The basic terms of the employment contract cannot be made dependent on the financial result obtained by the employer. The presence of formal deficiencies in the form of bonus payments without written orders or in the absence of regulations on the procedure for awarding employees does not indicate unequal performance of obligations.
There is no significant disparity in counter-performance on the part of the employee and the purpose of harming creditors in a situation where the employee's salary is increased so that it does not significantly differ from the pay for work in a similar position, which is received at other enterprises similar to the debtor in type and scale of activity. In order to recognize the agreement that increased the employee's salary as invalid on the basis of the bankruptcy law, it was necessary to compare the actual wages received with similar wage agreements concluded by other participants in the turnover.
The disparity of the counter-provision can be stated if the total salary of the employee differs significantly from the payment for work in a similar position, which is received at other enterprises similar to the debtor in type and scale of activity. The burden of proving such disparity lies with the person challenging the transaction.
In satisfying the bankruptcy trustee's application, the court of appeal did not establish that, in order to harm creditors, the parties to the employment contract intentionally significantly overestimated the specified fee in relation to the rates of other heads of business companies of the same level and reputation. It does not follow from the case file that the increased wages clearly did not correspond to the remuneration paid to the heads of organizations by other employers operating in the same region and in the same market.
The court also noted that the court of appeal had not given any assessment to the payslips containing information on the amount of wages of the debtor's employees, their ratio and the dynamics of wage growth.
Photo: Freepik
The court of first instance refused to satisfy the manager's application for invalidation of transactions and the application of the consequences of their invalidity due to the lack of evidence of the grounds for challenging them.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the contested transactions were made during the period of suspicion established by the bankruptcy law in order to harm the property rights of the debtor's creditors if the debtor has debts to creditors, including wages to employees, which are subsequently included in the register of creditors' claims. At the same time, the court took into account that the evidence of imposing additional duties on a citizen has not been presented; the debtor has partially stopped fulfilling his monetary obligations to employees and creditors.; there are no documents in the case confirming the validity of the accrual and payment of the bonus; a multiple increase in the official salary was made only in respect of a citizen.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new appeal hearing. According to the court, the offense imputed to the citizen was fully covered by the provisions of the bankruptcy law. The fact that the citizen fulfilled his labor duties by the persons involved in the case has not been refuted. The citizen referred to the fact that, in fact, the increase in wages was related to indexation, and he performed his labor functions in good faith. The bankruptcy trustee has not proved otherwise.
As the court noted, the specifics of the employment relationship is that when concluding an employment contract, there is no need to determine the exact scope and amount of counter-performance on the part of the employee. The basic terms of the employment contract cannot be made dependent on the financial result obtained by the employer. The presence of formal deficiencies in the form of bonus payments without written orders or in the absence of regulations on the procedure for awarding employees does not indicate unequal performance of obligations.
There is no significant disparity in counter-performance on the part of the employee and the purpose of harming creditors in a situation where the employee's salary is increased so that it does not significantly differ from the pay for work in a similar position, which is received at other enterprises similar to the debtor in type and scale of activity. In order to recognize the agreement that increased the employee's salary as invalid on the basis of the bankruptcy law, it was necessary to compare the actual wages received with similar wage agreements concluded by other participants in the turnover.
The disparity of the counter-provision can be stated if the total salary of the employee differs significantly from the payment for work in a similar position, which is received at other enterprises similar to the debtor in type and scale of activity. The burden of proving such disparity lies with the person challenging the transaction.
In satisfying the bankruptcy trustee's application, the court of appeal did not establish that, in order to harm creditors, the parties to the employment contract intentionally significantly overestimated the specified fee in relation to the rates of other heads of business companies of the same level and reputation. It does not follow from the case file that the increased wages clearly did not correspond to the remuneration paid to the heads of organizations by other employers operating in the same region and in the same market.
The court also noted that the court of appeal had not given any assessment to the payslips containing information on the amount of wages of the debtor's employees, their ratio and the dynamics of wage growth.
Photo: Freepik
15.08.2025
