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 BOUNDARIES OF GOOD FAITH IN THE ALIENATION OF CLAIMS IN BANKRUPTCY CASES
The manager appealed to the court with a claim for recovery of remuneration and expenses for conducting bankruptcy proceedings (case no. A40-180427/19).
In satisfying the stated requirements, the court of first instance took into account the measures taken by the bankruptcy trustee to replenish the bankruptcy estate, the partial repayment of debts, the lack of evidence of deliberate delaying by the manager of the bankruptcy proceedings, and the submission by the manager of relevant reports on the procedure. It was also noted that the founders (participants) of the debtor, the bank and, accordingly, its legal successor, the citizen, accepted the risks of incurring obligations to pay the remuneration of the arbitration administrator and repay court costs in the debtor's bankruptcy case if the latter does not have sufficient property to reimburse them in connection with the debtor's bankruptcy filing.
By changing the judicial act and refusing to satisfy the stated claims regarding the recovery of expenses and remuneration of the arbitration administrator from the bank, the court of appeal proceeded from the fact that as soon as the material succession of the remaining part of the rights under the assignment agreement took place, the bank, by virtue of the obligation provided for in the assignment agreement, prepared the documents and sent the citizen a notice of signing the act with the final the fixed amount of rights (claims). However, the notification with the act was not received by the assignee and returned back to the bank.
The fact that a citizen has not applied to the court for succession, as required by the assignment agreement, should not impose negative consequences on the bank. Such active participation of a citizen in the affairs also additionally confirms the citizen's knowledge of what happened in the processes when the property that was pledged to the bank was sold, and about the transfer of rights under the assignment agreement.
The Bank has legally and in good faith transferred its rights and obligations in the bankruptcy case to an existing, capable, able-bodied person.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance, drawing attention to the fact that the manager reasonably emphasized that it was the dishonesty of the bank that had concluded the assignment agreement in order to avoid incurring costs in the bankruptcy case that was the basis for collecting these costs and remuneration from him.
The conclusion of the court of appeal on the absence of obligations to the bankruptcy trustee at the time of the conclusion of the assignment agreement is unfounded, refuted by the case materials. As a result of an accounting error, the court of appeal unreasonably recognized as repaid the amount of debt incurred prior to the date of conclusion of the assignment agreement and outstanding by the bank to date.
Also, according to the cassation, the conclusion of the court of appeal on the date of determining the amount of debt to be recovered from the bank contradicts the current legislation. The date of conclusion of the assignment agreement is important solely for determining the moment when the relationship between the parties to such an agreement arises. Rights and obligations in the sense of the chapter of the law of obligations arise at the moment when this is provided for by such an agreement.
The dishonesty of the old and new creditors in the relationship between them, including with regard to the obligations to declare procedural succession, cannot affect the right of the arbitration administrator to remuneration and reimbursement of expenses established by law. The primary and new creditors, as a general rule, are jointly and severally liable to the arbitration administrator for the counter-fulfillment of the applicant's obligations in the bankruptcy case that arose before the replacement of the creditor.
The cassation instance also noted that the arbitration administrator had not given his consent to conclude an agreement between the primary applicant, the bank, and the legal successor, the citizen, on the transfer of the applicant's obligations in the bankruptcy case, formalized in the relevant assignment agreement.
Photo: Freepik
In satisfying the stated requirements, the court of first instance took into account the measures taken by the bankruptcy trustee to replenish the bankruptcy estate, the partial repayment of debts, the lack of evidence of deliberate delaying by the manager of the bankruptcy proceedings, and the submission by the manager of relevant reports on the procedure. It was also noted that the founders (participants) of the debtor, the bank and, accordingly, its legal successor, the citizen, accepted the risks of incurring obligations to pay the remuneration of the arbitration administrator and repay court costs in the debtor's bankruptcy case if the latter does not have sufficient property to reimburse them in connection with the debtor's bankruptcy filing.
By changing the judicial act and refusing to satisfy the stated claims regarding the recovery of expenses and remuneration of the arbitration administrator from the bank, the court of appeal proceeded from the fact that as soon as the material succession of the remaining part of the rights under the assignment agreement took place, the bank, by virtue of the obligation provided for in the assignment agreement, prepared the documents and sent the citizen a notice of signing the act with the final the fixed amount of rights (claims). However, the notification with the act was not received by the assignee and returned back to the bank.
The fact that a citizen has not applied to the court for succession, as required by the assignment agreement, should not impose negative consequences on the bank. Such active participation of a citizen in the affairs also additionally confirms the citizen's knowledge of what happened in the processes when the property that was pledged to the bank was sold, and about the transfer of rights under the assignment agreement.
The Bank has legally and in good faith transferred its rights and obligations in the bankruptcy case to an existing, capable, able-bodied person.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance, drawing attention to the fact that the manager reasonably emphasized that it was the dishonesty of the bank that had concluded the assignment agreement in order to avoid incurring costs in the bankruptcy case that was the basis for collecting these costs and remuneration from him.
The conclusion of the court of appeal on the absence of obligations to the bankruptcy trustee at the time of the conclusion of the assignment agreement is unfounded, refuted by the case materials. As a result of an accounting error, the court of appeal unreasonably recognized as repaid the amount of debt incurred prior to the date of conclusion of the assignment agreement and outstanding by the bank to date.
Also, according to the cassation, the conclusion of the court of appeal on the date of determining the amount of debt to be recovered from the bank contradicts the current legislation. The date of conclusion of the assignment agreement is important solely for determining the moment when the relationship between the parties to such an agreement arises. Rights and obligations in the sense of the chapter of the law of obligations arise at the moment when this is provided for by such an agreement.
The dishonesty of the old and new creditors in the relationship between them, including with regard to the obligations to declare procedural succession, cannot affect the right of the arbitration administrator to remuneration and reimbursement of expenses established by law. The primary and new creditors, as a general rule, are jointly and severally liable to the arbitration administrator for the counter-fulfillment of the applicant's obligations in the bankruptcy case that arose before the replacement of the creditor.
The cassation instance also noted that the arbitration administrator had not given his consent to conclude an agreement between the primary applicant, the bank, and the legal successor, the citizen, on the transfer of the applicant's obligations in the bankruptcy case, formalized in the relevant assignment agreement.
Photo: Freepik
01.08.2025
