RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
31/05/2026
Sunday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
31 May 
1970 World No Tobacco Day.
1970 World No Tobacco Day.
1970 The proclamation of independence of the South Africa from the Great Britain.
1970 The proclamation of independence of the South Africa from the Great Britain.
1970 The Trans-Siberian Railway was laid in Vladivostok.
1970 The Trans-Siberian Railway was laid in Vladivostok.
31 May
1970 World No Tobacco Day.
1970 World No Tobacco Day.
1970 The proclamation of independence of the South Africa from the Great Britain.
1970 The proclamation of independence of the South Africa from the Great Britain.
1970 The Trans-Siberian Railway was laid in Vladivostok.
1970 The Trans-Siberian Railway was laid in Vladivostok.
THE ILLUSION OF SOLIDARITY IS WHEN A CREDITOR SELECTIVELY FORGIVES A DEBT TO HIS OWN AND PERSECUTES OTHERS.
The Bank applied to the court to enter into a bankruptcy case against a citizen (case no. A84-8385/22), declare him bankrupt, introduce debt restructuring procedures and include claims in the register. Later, the bank was replaced by a creditor under the assignment agreement, which increased the amount of claims and requested that the amount of debt be included in the register, taking into account accrued interest and penalties.
The courts of two instances partially satisfied the application, applying the consequences of missing the limitation period and excluding the period of the moratorium, taking into account the appeal ruling of the district court, taking into account that the ruling of the arbitration court refused to invalidate the surety agreement concluded between the debtor and the bank, reducing the amount of the penalty to the amount of the principal debt.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, noting that the judicial acts were adopted with incomplete investigation of the circumstances essential to resolving the dispute, namely: the circumstances of obtaining a loan by the original borrower, the conclusion of security transactions by persons affiliated with the borrower and included in the same group with him, the expenditure of credit resources, the subsequent transfer of debt, the conclusion of additional security transactions, the existence of a corporate conflict, the circumstances of the acquisition of a claim from a creditor bank, the subsequent behavior of the new lender regarding the exercise of rights in respect of all persons who provided security for the fulfillment of obligations under the loan agreement.
In satisfying the claims of the creditor who received them from the bank under the assignment agreement, the courts limited themselves to pointing out the solidary nature of the debtor's surety.
However, the courts did not take into account the exception that, as a general rule, the guarantor has the right to refer to the fact that the creditor forgave the debt to the debtor or dropped the claim against the debtor.
Having pointed out the solidary nature of the debtor's obligations, the courts did not include in the subject of proof circumstances that are essential for determining the extent of responsibility of the debtor's guarantor.
In particular, the debtor's arguments that the loan was originally received by the company and the funds received were distributed to legal entities controlled by the creditor and a third party were not evaluated. The guarantors who provided security under this agreement were different persons. The assignee, being the beneficiary of all the specified persons, influencing their decision-making, has the opportunity to freely move assets between persons belonging to the specified group.
Objecting to the creditor's claims, the debtor refers to the current conflict between him and the persons belonging to the group controlled by the creditor, contrasting the creditor's claim to the only guarantor in conflict with the group members, which is expressed, among other things, in the fact that the creditor has waived his claims against all other guarantors and the main to the borrower, thereby depriving the debtor of the possibility of real subrogation satisfaction of its claims.
The courts of two instances partially satisfied the application, applying the consequences of missing the limitation period and excluding the period of the moratorium, taking into account the appeal ruling of the district court, taking into account that the ruling of the arbitration court refused to invalidate the surety agreement concluded between the debtor and the bank, reducing the amount of the penalty to the amount of the principal debt.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, noting that the judicial acts were adopted with incomplete investigation of the circumstances essential to resolving the dispute, namely: the circumstances of obtaining a loan by the original borrower, the conclusion of security transactions by persons affiliated with the borrower and included in the same group with him, the expenditure of credit resources, the subsequent transfer of debt, the conclusion of additional security transactions, the existence of a corporate conflict, the circumstances of the acquisition of a claim from a creditor bank, the subsequent behavior of the new lender regarding the exercise of rights in respect of all persons who provided security for the fulfillment of obligations under the loan agreement.
In satisfying the claims of the creditor who received them from the bank under the assignment agreement, the courts limited themselves to pointing out the solidary nature of the debtor's surety.
However, the courts did not take into account the exception that, as a general rule, the guarantor has the right to refer to the fact that the creditor forgave the debt to the debtor or dropped the claim against the debtor.
Having pointed out the solidary nature of the debtor's obligations, the courts did not include in the subject of proof circumstances that are essential for determining the extent of responsibility of the debtor's guarantor.
In particular, the debtor's arguments that the loan was originally received by the company and the funds received were distributed to legal entities controlled by the creditor and a third party were not evaluated. The guarantors who provided security under this agreement were different persons. The assignee, being the beneficiary of all the specified persons, influencing their decision-making, has the opportunity to freely move assets between persons belonging to the specified group.
Objecting to the creditor's claims, the debtor refers to the current conflict between him and the persons belonging to the group controlled by the creditor, contrasting the creditor's claim to the only guarantor in conflict with the group members, which is expressed, among other things, in the fact that the creditor has waived his claims against all other guarantors and the main to the borrower, thereby depriving the debtor of the possibility of real subrogation satisfaction of its claims.
26.05.2026
