RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
26/07/2026
Sunday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
26 July 
1970 The independence of the Maldives was proclaimed.
1970 The independence of the Maldives was proclaimed.
1970 War on the Indians was declared in Boston
1970 A war on the Native Americans (the Indians) was declared in Boston. From 15 to 100 pounds was promised for the scalp of one Indian.
1970 Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich convened the boyar Duma and the Council of the Patriarch to collect all the old laws and put them in order.
26 July
1970 The independence of the Maldives was proclaimed.
1970 The independence of the Maldives was proclaimed.
1970 War on the Indians was declared in Boston
1970 A war on the Native Americans (the Indians) was declared in Boston. From 15 to 100 pounds was promised for the scalp of one Indian.
1970 Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich convened the boyar Duma and the Council of the Patriarch to collect all the old laws and put them in order.
THE BANKRUPTCY'S GOOD FAITH STANDARD EXCLUDES THE ORIGINAL CONCEALMENT OF ASSETS
The manager filed a petition with the court to complete the procedure for the sale of the citizen's property and release him from his obligations (case No. A76-15352/17).
Applying the rules on release from obligations to the debtor, the courts of two instances proceeded from the fact that the materials of the case did not establish any evidence of the debtor's unscrupulous behavior, such as concealing any property, evading cooperation with the financial manager, or refusing to provide any documents.
The Court of Cassation sent the case back for a new trial, pointing out that the court's decision in the bankruptcy case of the citizen's spouse and the court's decision in this case had declared the gift contracts for the apartment and the garage invalid, which were concluded between the citizen and his spouse, on the one hand, and their children, grandchildren, and nephews, on the other.
These court decisions established that the property was alienated by the citizen in favor of the interested parties, and the transactions were concluded while the citizen had obligations to other creditors: at the time of the transactions, the citizen, as a guarantor for loan agreements concluded with legal entities, had unfulfilled obligations to creditors.
The citizen deliberately removed the property from the bankruptcy estate, as he foresaw the possibility of enforcing the obligations by foreclosing on the debtor's property. Thus, during the consideration of this bankruptcy case, it was established that the citizen intended to cause harm to its creditors by committing these transactions, in the form of a decrease in the percentage of their claims being satisfied during the procedure.
Contrary to the conclusion of the courts that there was no harm, motivated by the fact that the above-mentioned property was returned to the bankruptcy estate and sold, in order to correctly resolve the issue of whether or not there were grounds for applying the rule on further discharge of obligations to the citizen, the court needed to assess in this case whether the citizen's actions met the standard of behavior of a bona fide debtor who seeks to fulfill their obligations in a proper manner.
When determining the amount of obligations that the citizen will retain at the end of the procedure as a result of his unscrupulous and illegal actions, the court had to take into account the criterion of the proportionality of the unfulfilled obligations and the negative consequences caused to the creditor by the citizen's unscrupulous behavior, including the long-term waiting period for the distribution of the bankruptcy estate, in order to determine the fair amount of the claims that the citizen is not entitled to be released from.
Applying the rules on release from obligations to the debtor, the courts of two instances proceeded from the fact that the materials of the case did not establish any evidence of the debtor's unscrupulous behavior, such as concealing any property, evading cooperation with the financial manager, or refusing to provide any documents.
The Court of Cassation sent the case back for a new trial, pointing out that the court's decision in the bankruptcy case of the citizen's spouse and the court's decision in this case had declared the gift contracts for the apartment and the garage invalid, which were concluded between the citizen and his spouse, on the one hand, and their children, grandchildren, and nephews, on the other.
These court decisions established that the property was alienated by the citizen in favor of the interested parties, and the transactions were concluded while the citizen had obligations to other creditors: at the time of the transactions, the citizen, as a guarantor for loan agreements concluded with legal entities, had unfulfilled obligations to creditors.
The citizen deliberately removed the property from the bankruptcy estate, as he foresaw the possibility of enforcing the obligations by foreclosing on the debtor's property. Thus, during the consideration of this bankruptcy case, it was established that the citizen intended to cause harm to its creditors by committing these transactions, in the form of a decrease in the percentage of their claims being satisfied during the procedure.
Contrary to the conclusion of the courts that there was no harm, motivated by the fact that the above-mentioned property was returned to the bankruptcy estate and sold, in order to correctly resolve the issue of whether or not there were grounds for applying the rule on further discharge of obligations to the citizen, the court needed to assess in this case whether the citizen's actions met the standard of behavior of a bona fide debtor who seeks to fulfill their obligations in a proper manner.
When determining the amount of obligations that the citizen will retain at the end of the procedure as a result of his unscrupulous and illegal actions, the court had to take into account the criterion of the proportionality of the unfulfilled obligations and the negative consequences caused to the creditor by the citizen's unscrupulous behavior, including the long-term waiting period for the distribution of the bankruptcy estate, in order to determine the fair amount of the claims that the citizen is not entitled to be released from.
02.07.2026
