RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
10/01/2026
Saturday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
10 January 
2010 A new type of preventive measure – the house arrest was introduced in Russia.
2010 A new type of preventive measure – the house arrest, was introduced in Russia
1966 India and Pakistan signed a declaration to the end of the war.
1966 India and Pakistan signed a declaration to the end of the war
1863 The world's first subway line with a length of 3.6 km was launched in London.
1863 The world's first subway line with a length of 3.6 km was launched in London
10 January
2010 A new type of preventive measure – the house arrest was introduced in Russia.
2010 A new type of preventive measure – the house arrest, was introduced in Russia
1966 India and Pakistan signed a declaration to the end of the war.
1966 India and Pakistan signed a declaration to the end of the war
1863 The world's first subway line with a length of 3.6 km was launched in London.
1863 The world's first subway line with a length of 3.6 km was launched in London
THE COMMERCIAL VALUE OF THE LESSEE'S CONTRACTUAL POSITION AS A CRITERION FOR ASSESSING THE SUSPICIOUSNESS OF THE TRANSACTION
The manager appealed to the court with a demand to invalidate the loan agreement to the lease agreement (case no. A37-1359/23).
The court of first instance, whose conclusions were supported by the Court of Appeal, recognizing the contested transaction as invalid, proceeded from the fact that at the date of conclusion of the contract the debtor had signs of insolvency, the transaction was concluded between affiliated persons, in the absence of an equivalent counter-provision, aimed at causing property damage to creditors, the actions of the debtor and the defendant indicate a focus on concealing the debtor's property from creditors and, accordingly, the presence of signs of abuse of law in the actions of the parties to the transaction.
The cassation refused to satisfy the application, noting that the disparity of the counter—grants was to be determined based on the actual value of the contractual position - the right to purchase the leased item at the time of its acquisition, and not based on the value of the leased item itself, as the courts of the first and appellate instances mistakenly considered.
As follows from the case file, in the period after the conclusion of the transaction, the company repeatedly made payments for the debtor in favor of third parties. The total amount of money that was paid by the defendant for the debtor to third parties, including under other lease agreements, is significantly more than that paid by the debtor himself. However, neither the court of first instance nor the Court of Appeal assessed these circumstances.
In addition, the courts ignored the fact that the court's decision in another case satisfied the claims of the lessor and seized the debtor's property complex in favor of the lessor, which is the subject of leasing under a number of agreements, including the disputed vehicle. Thus, at the time of the conclusion of the loan agreement, the financial lease agreement had already been terminated, the vehicle was seized, accordingly, damage to the property interests of creditors could not be caused due to the impossibility of including this property in the debtor's bankruptcy estate.
Subsequently, a settlement agreement was concluded between the parties to the dispute, under the terms of which they agreed to continue the previously terminated lease agreements, and as a result of the payments made by the defendant, the debtor retained the property previously seized by the lessor.
As follows from the bankruptcy trustee's report, the property, lease payments for which were made by the defendant, was included in the debtor's bankruptcy estate and subsequently partially sold at auction. At the same time, the defendant himself did not apply for inclusion in the register of creditors' claims of the funds he paid for the debtor.
Thus, the conclusion of a loan agreement and the subsequent fulfillment of obligations by the defendant for the debtor not only did not infringe on the creditors' rights, but, on the contrary, contributed to the replenishment of the debtor's bankruptcy estate, through the implementation of which their claims can be satisfied.
Photo: Freepik
The court of first instance, whose conclusions were supported by the Court of Appeal, recognizing the contested transaction as invalid, proceeded from the fact that at the date of conclusion of the contract the debtor had signs of insolvency, the transaction was concluded between affiliated persons, in the absence of an equivalent counter-provision, aimed at causing property damage to creditors, the actions of the debtor and the defendant indicate a focus on concealing the debtor's property from creditors and, accordingly, the presence of signs of abuse of law in the actions of the parties to the transaction.
The cassation refused to satisfy the application, noting that the disparity of the counter—grants was to be determined based on the actual value of the contractual position - the right to purchase the leased item at the time of its acquisition, and not based on the value of the leased item itself, as the courts of the first and appellate instances mistakenly considered.
As follows from the case file, in the period after the conclusion of the transaction, the company repeatedly made payments for the debtor in favor of third parties. The total amount of money that was paid by the defendant for the debtor to third parties, including under other lease agreements, is significantly more than that paid by the debtor himself. However, neither the court of first instance nor the Court of Appeal assessed these circumstances.
In addition, the courts ignored the fact that the court's decision in another case satisfied the claims of the lessor and seized the debtor's property complex in favor of the lessor, which is the subject of leasing under a number of agreements, including the disputed vehicle. Thus, at the time of the conclusion of the loan agreement, the financial lease agreement had already been terminated, the vehicle was seized, accordingly, damage to the property interests of creditors could not be caused due to the impossibility of including this property in the debtor's bankruptcy estate.
Subsequently, a settlement agreement was concluded between the parties to the dispute, under the terms of which they agreed to continue the previously terminated lease agreements, and as a result of the payments made by the defendant, the debtor retained the property previously seized by the lessor.
As follows from the bankruptcy trustee's report, the property, lease payments for which were made by the defendant, was included in the debtor's bankruptcy estate and subsequently partially sold at auction. At the same time, the defendant himself did not apply for inclusion in the register of creditors' claims of the funds he paid for the debtor.
Thus, the conclusion of a loan agreement and the subsequent fulfillment of obligations by the defendant for the debtor not only did not infringe on the creditors' rights, but, on the contrary, contributed to the replenishment of the debtor's bankruptcy estate, through the implementation of which their claims can be satisfied.
Photo: Freepik
25.12.2025
