THE INVESTMENT CONTRACT BECAME A REASON FOR DISPUTES IN BANKRUPTCY CASE

The Supreme Court considered a case on challenging the investment contract concluded between the bankrupt debtor and the city administration. Under the terms of the agreement, the company pledged to transfer non-residential premises to the administration in exchange for the right to demolish the house and build another instead of it.

Subsequently, the company was declared insolvent by the court, and its bankruptcy manager demanded that the concluded investment contract should be declared invalid, citing the preference for the interests of the administration and the absence of a consideration under the contract.

The court of first instance dismissed the claim, stating that the contested agreement was concluded by the parties for the execution of the decision of the court which had prejudicial force. However, the appeal and cassation instances rejected these arguments, indicating that the applicant had proven the entire set of circumstances that testified to the invalidity of the agreement.

When considering the case, the highest court reminded colleagues that the rule of law that was in force at the time of the conclusion of the controversial agreement provided that the object of investment activity was in shared ownership of the parties to the agreement.

Under such circumstances, it cannot get into the bankruptcy estate of the debtor, and therefore it is not possible to talk about any preference in relation to the administration as a creditor (definition No. 305-ES18-25276 (5) of November 16, 2020).