RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
09/04/2026
Thursday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
9 April 
1928 Islam became the official religion of Turkey
1928 Islam became the official religion of Turkey
1699 Peter the Great issued a decree on cleanliness in Moscow with a punishment for throwing litter on the streets and alleys
1699 Peter the Great issued a decree on cleanliness in Moscow with a punishment for throwing litter on the streets and alleys
1667 Paris hosted the world's first public art exhibition
1667 Paris hosted the world's first public art exhibition
9 April
1928 Islam became the official religion of Turkey
1928 Islam became the official religion of Turkey
1699 Peter the Great issued a decree on cleanliness in Moscow with a punishment for throwing litter on the streets and alleys
1699 Peter the Great issued a decree on cleanliness in Moscow with a punishment for throwing litter on the streets and alleys
1667 Paris hosted the world's first public art exhibition
1667 Paris hosted the world's first public art exhibition
THE DUTCH COMPANY WAS PREVENTED FROM BANKRUPT KRASNODAR DEVELOPER
An unexpected turn has taken place in the insolvency case of the Krasnodar company Gesheft. The court of appeal has cancelled the previously introduced bankruptcy procedure initiated by the Dutch company Certhon Projects. The basis for this decision was the conclusion that the foreign creditor had failed to comply with the necessary formalities, and the court considered his actions potentially violating public order.
The conflict has a background: back in March 2024, the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the CCI of the Russian Federation ordered Gesheft to pay more than €1 million. These funds were collected under a 2017 contract for the supply of equipment for greenhouses. Despite the decision, the debtor did not voluntarily transfer the funds. It was only after a year of proceedings, in May 2025, that the foreign firm finally received a writ of execution.
Instead of turning to bailiffs for enforcement, Certhon Projects immediately filed for bankruptcy of Gesheft, estimating its claims at 105.5 million rubles in Russian equivalent. The first instance agreed with this approach. However, the debtor appealed the verdict, and the appeal sided with him.
The judges of the Court of Appeal noted: the creditor did not even try to launch the FSSP mechanism. In addition, it turned out that the Dutch company itself has not been operating in Russia since 2022 and does not have local bank accounts. This, according to the court, seriously complicates any mutual settlements. The decision also raised the issue of the applicant's possible dishonesty. The court attributed this to Certhon Projects belonging to structures that can finance states that are recognized as unfriendly.
As a result, the appeal declared the bankruptcy petition unfounded, considering the actions of the foreign creditor to be an abuse of law. The court stressed that Gesheft has assets, and the debtor himself is involved in the proceedings, which does not give grounds for immediate liquidation.
Lawyers comment on the situation ambiguously. Some consider the verdict of the appeal logical in the context of restrictions for creditors from unfriendly countries. Others object: the foreign status itself, the lack of accounts in the Russian Federation, or the refusal to apply to bailiffs should not automatically block bankruptcy.
Some experts draw attention to the weak argumentation of "violation of public order" – especially considering that the arbitration award was made by a Russian institution and was previously recognized as legitimate. Sanctions interfere with calculations, but they do not completely cancel them. Experts believe that in cases involving foreign participation, the courts will continue to take a protectionist position. However, it is possible that the cassation may reconsider this approach and make a different decision.
Photo: Freepik
The conflict has a background: back in March 2024, the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the CCI of the Russian Federation ordered Gesheft to pay more than €1 million. These funds were collected under a 2017 contract for the supply of equipment for greenhouses. Despite the decision, the debtor did not voluntarily transfer the funds. It was only after a year of proceedings, in May 2025, that the foreign firm finally received a writ of execution.
Instead of turning to bailiffs for enforcement, Certhon Projects immediately filed for bankruptcy of Gesheft, estimating its claims at 105.5 million rubles in Russian equivalent. The first instance agreed with this approach. However, the debtor appealed the verdict, and the appeal sided with him.
The judges of the Court of Appeal noted: the creditor did not even try to launch the FSSP mechanism. In addition, it turned out that the Dutch company itself has not been operating in Russia since 2022 and does not have local bank accounts. This, according to the court, seriously complicates any mutual settlements. The decision also raised the issue of the applicant's possible dishonesty. The court attributed this to Certhon Projects belonging to structures that can finance states that are recognized as unfriendly.
As a result, the appeal declared the bankruptcy petition unfounded, considering the actions of the foreign creditor to be an abuse of law. The court stressed that Gesheft has assets, and the debtor himself is involved in the proceedings, which does not give grounds for immediate liquidation.
Lawyers comment on the situation ambiguously. Some consider the verdict of the appeal logical in the context of restrictions for creditors from unfriendly countries. Others object: the foreign status itself, the lack of accounts in the Russian Federation, or the refusal to apply to bailiffs should not automatically block bankruptcy.
Some experts draw attention to the weak argumentation of "violation of public order" – especially considering that the arbitration award was made by a Russian institution and was previously recognized as legitimate. Sanctions interfere with calculations, but they do not completely cancel them. Experts believe that in cases involving foreign participation, the courts will continue to take a protectionist position. However, it is possible that the cassation may reconsider this approach and make a different decision.
Photo: Freepik
08.04.2026
