THE COURT CANCELED AN INCREASE IN THE REMUNERATION OF A DEBTOR-DEVELOPER’S MANAGER

THE COURT CANCELED AN INCREASE IN THE REMUNERATION OF A DEBTOR-DEVELOPER’S MANAGER

THE COURT CANCELED AN INCREASE IN THE REMUNERATION OF A DEBTOR-DEVELOPER’S MANAGER
The bankruptcy manager of a debtor applied to the court with a demand to increase the fixed part of his remuneration in the framework of bankruptcy. The arguments were based on the fact that the volume of work is significant and is due to the complex requirements of creditors, the debtor had a large number of assets, and what is more, there was a need to challenge a number of transactions.

The courts of the first and second instances satisfied the application, and the amount of the remuneration was increased.

One of the creditors did not agree with this state of affairs, and challenged the adopted judicial acts in cassation.

The appealer drew the court's attention to the fact that the decision to increase the amount of the manager's remuneration taken at the meeting of creditors was subsequently canceled.

What is more, the trustee did not submit to the court evidence that he performed a larger amount of work than in the ordinary bankruptcy of the debtor-developer.

When considering the complaint, the judges of the district court recalled that an increase in remuneration is possible in a situation of a combination of a number of circumstances:

  • in case there is an appropriate decision of the meeting of creditors or a petition of the persons participating in the case;
  • in the situation when the debtor's funds are enough to settle with the manager (if there is an increase in his remuneration);
  • in case there is an increased volume and complexity of the work performed by the manager.

In addition, the board pointed out that the very fact that the bankruptcy manager leads the bankruptcy of the debtor-developer does not automatically imply an increased volume and complexity of the work performed.

As a result, both court decisions were canceled, and the manager was denied satisfaction of his claims (decision in case No. A56-21769 / 2016 of February 9, 2021).


22.03.2021