RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
25/05/2026
Monday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
25 May 
1970 Africa's Liberation Day.
1970 Africa's Liberation Day.
1970 North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test.
1970 The independence of Jordan from England was declared.
1970 The independence of Jordan from England was declared.
25 May
1970 Africa's Liberation Day.
1970 Africa's Liberation Day.
1970 North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test.
1970 The independence of Jordan from England was declared.
1970 The independence of Jordan from England was declared.
THE APPEAL DENIED THE EXTRAJUDICIAL BLOCKING OF SWEDHUS ASSETS
Another attempt to seize assets in the insolvency case of the company "SWEDE HUS" failed. The appeal (9th AAC) did not annul the verdict of the lower instance. The earlier complaint of entrepreneur Ksenia Pogiba was rejected, and the earlier ruling of the Moscow Arbitration Court (AC GM) was recognized as legitimate.
SWEDHUS is a joint venture. It was established by a construction holding company from the Russian Federation and the Swedish Ditt HOUSE. The organization produced and installed house kits.
The proceedings on the application for recognition of the Swedish HUS company as insolvent began on March 10. The court began proceedings on the case, planning to check the validity of the claims on May 13.
In parallel with the initiation of the insolvency proceedings, the plaintiff requested the introduction of security measures. The businesswoman insisted on a ban on disposing of the debtor's assets until the final of the procedure. It was proposed to place the company's funds and property under arrest, as well as block transactions on the alienation or encumbrance of property.
Among the objects that the applicant wanted to protect from hypothetical disappearance were various assets. They included the defendant's production lines in the Istra district, stocks of building materials, technological equipment, finished products, and even several cottages that had already been built in the Moscow region.
Nevertheless, on March 11, the arbitration court issued a verdict on the absence of legal prerequisites for the application of restrictions. The judge noted that the plaintiff had not proved that the refusal of arrest could complicate the execution of a future act or cause serious losses. The materials of the case, according to the court, did not contain evidence of the real need to block assets.
Disagreeing with the decision, the entrepreneur tried to challenge it on appeal. However, the 9th AAC re-analyzed the arguments of the parties and found no reason to reconsider the case. As a result, the judicial epic with interim measures did not end in favor of the applicant.
SWEDHUS is a joint venture. It was established by a construction holding company from the Russian Federation and the Swedish Ditt HOUSE. The organization produced and installed house kits.
The proceedings on the application for recognition of the Swedish HUS company as insolvent began on March 10. The court began proceedings on the case, planning to check the validity of the claims on May 13.
In parallel with the initiation of the insolvency proceedings, the plaintiff requested the introduction of security measures. The businesswoman insisted on a ban on disposing of the debtor's assets until the final of the procedure. It was proposed to place the company's funds and property under arrest, as well as block transactions on the alienation or encumbrance of property.
Among the objects that the applicant wanted to protect from hypothetical disappearance were various assets. They included the defendant's production lines in the Istra district, stocks of building materials, technological equipment, finished products, and even several cottages that had already been built in the Moscow region.
Nevertheless, on March 11, the arbitration court issued a verdict on the absence of legal prerequisites for the application of restrictions. The judge noted that the plaintiff had not proved that the refusal of arrest could complicate the execution of a future act or cause serious losses. The materials of the case, according to the court, did not contain evidence of the real need to block assets.
Disagreeing with the decision, the entrepreneur tried to challenge it on appeal. However, the 9th AAC re-analyzed the arguments of the parties and found no reason to reconsider the case. As a result, the judicial epic with interim measures did not end in favor of the applicant.
25.05.2026
