THE DISTRICT COURT IMPLIED INTERIM MEASURES TO BANKRUPTCY MANAGER

As part of the insolvency case of the debtor, one of his creditors filed an application for the implementation of interim measures against the manager. The requirement was to prohibit the crisis manager from settling with another creditor. At the same time, the moment of suspension was determined - until the court considered a dispute related to the case, in which the validity of agreements confirming the right to be included in the register of creditors’ claims was questioned.

As additional arguments in his favor, the applicant pointed out that the manager had already partially tried to settle with the creditor by means of a payment order, and the creditor himself was a micro-enterprise with an authorized capital of 10 thousand rubles and significantly reduced assets.

In this regard, the process of collecting the required amount will be difficult in case it is necessary.

However, the judges of the court of the first instance and the court of appeal were not impressed by the problem and rejected the claim. The court of appeal stated that in the current situation, the manager should not distribute the bankruptcy estate until the disputed case is considered, therefore there is no need for additional interim measures.

Then the applicant applied to another court and made a right decision: the District Court listened to his arguments, cancelled the previous orders and ordered interim measures for the manager.

The Board recalled that security is an urgent interim measure designed to secure the claim or the applicant's property interests. Therefore, in a situation where the manager must behave in good faith, but made a partial settlement with the creditor, the legality of the debt to whom is disputed in court, it is necessary to take interim measures (judgment in case No. A56-18086 / 2016 of January 18, 2021).