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1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.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1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.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 WILL CHECK THE LIMITS OF JURISDICTION IN THE COLLECTION OF CURRENT PAYMENTS
The Supreme Court (SC) of the Russian Federation intends to clarify the role of pre-emption in disputes over the debtor's current obligations. The Economic Collegium (EC) will focus on a case that could form an important legal position on the issue of when previously issued decisions are binding on the court when considering claims for payment for subsequent periods of use of property.
A case has been filed (No. A65-968/2025), in which Elektron demands 56.8 million rubles from Vozrozhdenie for the actual use of real estate from the end of February 2023 to the middle of July 2024. Initially, the parties had a lease agreement dated September 2020 for 13 properties in Kazan. However, the court later declared the agreement null and void due to the lack of agreement on the rental price.
Earlier, Elektron had already managed to recover two amounts from its counterparty: 6.7 million for the period up to September 2021 and another 30.9 million for the following year. Both times, as unjust enrichment. When the bankruptcy procedure was initiated against Vozrozhdenie (December 2023), the owner of the buildings made claims for a new period, this time as current payments.
The courts of three instances sided with the plaintiff, relying on the principle of precedence. The judges decided that since the fact of ownership was confirmed by the old decisions, and there was no evidence of the return of the property, then the use continued.
However, the bankruptcy trustee (BT) of the debtor categorically disagreed with this approach. In his complaint, he emphasizes that the previous court decisions only recorded the transfer of objects under acts. But this does not indicate in any way that they were actually used in the new, later period. The applicant insists that it is the plaintiff who must prove the actual use of real estate in the disputed months, and not limit itself to referring to the old decisions.
In addition, the CU draws attention to the fact that the bankrupt company's activities were effectively suspended. The organization had no employees or movable property left. This made it impossible to use the production facilities. The defendant had sent the owner documents regarding the return of the premises, but Elektron had left them unsigned and had not taken any steps to reclaim the facilities. According to the applicant, the courts should have considered these circumstances. It was necessary to determine whether the owner could independently manage the vacant buildings during this period.
The potential affiliation of the parties is of particular concern to the CU. He believes that the companies' actions may have been aimed at increasing the debt solely to ensure that Elektron's claims are prioritized over the rest of the estate. According to him, the lower courts have ignored these arguments. Judge Irina Gracheva of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation found these arguments convincing enough to initiate a full review of the case by the Supreme Court of Economic Justice.
A case has been filed (No. A65-968/2025), in which Elektron demands 56.8 million rubles from Vozrozhdenie for the actual use of real estate from the end of February 2023 to the middle of July 2024. Initially, the parties had a lease agreement dated September 2020 for 13 properties in Kazan. However, the court later declared the agreement null and void due to the lack of agreement on the rental price.
Earlier, Elektron had already managed to recover two amounts from its counterparty: 6.7 million for the period up to September 2021 and another 30.9 million for the following year. Both times, as unjust enrichment. When the bankruptcy procedure was initiated against Vozrozhdenie (December 2023), the owner of the buildings made claims for a new period, this time as current payments.
The courts of three instances sided with the plaintiff, relying on the principle of precedence. The judges decided that since the fact of ownership was confirmed by the old decisions, and there was no evidence of the return of the property, then the use continued.
However, the bankruptcy trustee (BT) of the debtor categorically disagreed with this approach. In his complaint, he emphasizes that the previous court decisions only recorded the transfer of objects under acts. But this does not indicate in any way that they were actually used in the new, later period. The applicant insists that it is the plaintiff who must prove the actual use of real estate in the disputed months, and not limit itself to referring to the old decisions.
In addition, the CU draws attention to the fact that the bankrupt company's activities were effectively suspended. The organization had no employees or movable property left. This made it impossible to use the production facilities. The defendant had sent the owner documents regarding the return of the premises, but Elektron had left them unsigned and had not taken any steps to reclaim the facilities. According to the applicant, the courts should have considered these circumstances. It was necessary to determine whether the owner could independently manage the vacant buildings during this period.
The potential affiliation of the parties is of particular concern to the CU. He believes that the companies' actions may have been aimed at increasing the debt solely to ensure that Elektron's claims are prioritized over the rest of the estate. According to him, the lower courts have ignored these arguments. Judge Irina Gracheva of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation found these arguments convincing enough to initiate a full review of the case by the Supreme Court of Economic Justice.
08.07.2026
