RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
21/07/2026
Tuesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
21 July 
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
21 July
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
THE COURT OF APPEAL DENIED THE COMPLAINTS OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
The Arbitration Court of the Central District refused to recognize the actions of Olga Saenko, the bankruptcy manager of Eurostandard LLC, as illegal. The court of cassation concluded that it was not enough to establish a formal deviation from the requirements of the law in order to satisfy the complaint: the applicants had to prove that the manager's actions had violated their rights or caused property damage. The dispute was considered in case No. A09-10590/2019.
Creditors Evgeny Bolmat and Alexey Rybikov filed claims against the manager. They pointed out the untimely inventory and lack of assessment of a number of objects, the failure to take measures to register the rights to real estate, and the conclusion of a contract with an interested party without prior approval from the creditors' meeting. The appeal partially supported the заявителей. The first-instance court found no grounds for satisfying the complaints. It determined that it was impossible to conduct the inventory within the established timeframe due to the lack of legal documentation. The former company's CEO, Evgeny Bolmat, was required to provide the necessary documents.
The disputed objects were subsequently included in the bankruptcy estate as construction materials that could be dismantled. The court deemed it possible to avoid conducting a separate assessment, taking into account the results of the bankruptcy proceedings. Additionally, the court did not recognize the land plot and the structures located on it as a single real estate complex.
The Twentieth Arbitration Court of Appeal took a different stance and partially satisfied the creditors' claims. The non-conducting of an inventory within a three-month period, the lack of an assessment of the property, and the conclusion of a contract with an individual entrepreneur without the approval of the creditor meeting were deemed to be illegal. The appeal court also mentioned the payment of 405,000 rubles. The cassation court did not find any damage to the bankruptcy estate. The district court overturned the appeal court's decision in the part that was not in favor of the bankruptcy trustee. The cassation court stated that the length of the inventory was due to objective circumstances that had already been examined by the court. The court did not find any signs of Olga Saenko's unscrupulous or unreasonable behavior.
An important circumstance was the completion of the bankruptcy with a positive outcome for the creditors. The proceedings were terminated in August 2023 after the full settlement of the claims included in the register. Therefore, the applicants were unable to prove that the delay in certain activities had reduced the bankruptcy estate or prevented them from receiving the funds due to them.
The court also considered the arguments regarding the 405,000 rubles transferred to the entrepreneur for the services provided. According to the manager's explanations, the payments were made from her personal funds, and the debtor's money was not used for this purpose. Later, Saenko refused to claim reimbursement for these expenses, so the court did not find any evidence of damage to the estate.
The violation of the law must be linked to the consequences.
The Court of Cassation emphasized that when appealing against the actions of an arbitration manager, the court must establish two circumstances simultaneously: the manager's behavior does not comply with the requirements of the law, and the applicant's rights have been violated. The mere failure to comply with the deadline or established procedure is not sufficient if it does not result in losses or other adverse consequences.
Experts note that this approach is consistent with the established bankruptcy practice. Creditors need not only to name the violation, but also to show the causal relationship between the manager's actions and the actual or potential damage. The recognition of actions as unlawful, and even more so the removal of the manager, are considered by the courts as serious measures that require evidence of a significant violation of the interests of the participants in the procedure.
As a result of the proceedings, the Central District Arbitration Court denied Evgeny Bolmat and Alexey Rybikov's claims in the disputed part, restoring the findings of the first-instance court.
Creditors Evgeny Bolmat and Alexey Rybikov filed claims against the manager. They pointed out the untimely inventory and lack of assessment of a number of objects, the failure to take measures to register the rights to real estate, and the conclusion of a contract with an interested party without prior approval from the creditors' meeting. The appeal partially supported the заявителей. The first-instance court found no grounds for satisfying the complaints. It determined that it was impossible to conduct the inventory within the established timeframe due to the lack of legal documentation. The former company's CEO, Evgeny Bolmat, was required to provide the necessary documents.
The disputed objects were subsequently included in the bankruptcy estate as construction materials that could be dismantled. The court deemed it possible to avoid conducting a separate assessment, taking into account the results of the bankruptcy proceedings. Additionally, the court did not recognize the land plot and the structures located on it as a single real estate complex.
The Twentieth Arbitration Court of Appeal took a different stance and partially satisfied the creditors' claims. The non-conducting of an inventory within a three-month period, the lack of an assessment of the property, and the conclusion of a contract with an individual entrepreneur without the approval of the creditor meeting were deemed to be illegal. The appeal court also mentioned the payment of 405,000 rubles. The cassation court did not find any damage to the bankruptcy estate. The district court overturned the appeal court's decision in the part that was not in favor of the bankruptcy trustee. The cassation court stated that the length of the inventory was due to objective circumstances that had already been examined by the court. The court did not find any signs of Olga Saenko's unscrupulous or unreasonable behavior.
An important circumstance was the completion of the bankruptcy with a positive outcome for the creditors. The proceedings were terminated in August 2023 after the full settlement of the claims included in the register. Therefore, the applicants were unable to prove that the delay in certain activities had reduced the bankruptcy estate or prevented them from receiving the funds due to them.
The court also considered the arguments regarding the 405,000 rubles transferred to the entrepreneur for the services provided. According to the manager's explanations, the payments were made from her personal funds, and the debtor's money was not used for this purpose. Later, Saenko refused to claim reimbursement for these expenses, so the court did not find any evidence of damage to the estate.
The violation of the law must be linked to the consequences.
The Court of Cassation emphasized that when appealing against the actions of an arbitration manager, the court must establish two circumstances simultaneously: the manager's behavior does not comply with the requirements of the law, and the applicant's rights have been violated. The mere failure to comply with the deadline or established procedure is not sufficient if it does not result in losses or other adverse consequences.
Experts note that this approach is consistent with the established bankruptcy practice. Creditors need not only to name the violation, but also to show the causal relationship between the manager's actions and the actual or potential damage. The recognition of actions as unlawful, and even more so the removal of the manager, are considered by the courts as serious measures that require evidence of a significant violation of the interests of the participants in the procedure.
As a result of the proceedings, the Central District Arbitration Court denied Evgeny Bolmat and Alexey Rybikov's claims in the disputed part, restoring the findings of the first-instance court.
21.07.2026
