RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
THE ISSUE PRICE: WHEN THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUE IS NOT GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGING THE TRANSACTION
The manager applied to the court to challenge the contract of sale of the bus (case no. A56-149883/18).
The court of first instance granted the application, recognizing that the citizen had purchased the bus for an undervalued price, however, he later sold the bus to a third party for a significantly larger amount, which exceeds the price of the disputed contract. The defendant has not provided any evidence of payment of the market price or other counter-performance in favor of the debtor for the acquired property. With this in mind, the court concluded that there was no equivalent counter-performance on the part of the defendant under the contract.
The appeal refused to restore the missed deadline for filing the complaint and returned it.
The Court of Cassation refused to satisfy the application, noting that settlements between the parties under the contested transaction were made through payment to the company's account. The citizen explained that he was not affiliated with the debtor, he learned about the sale of the bus from an advertisement on the site, he called the debtor's representative and agreed to buy the bus.
His expenses for the purchase of a bus amounted to a significant amount (travel, fuel and repairs); the purchase and resale of vehicles is his income-generating activity.
Taking into account the above, the court of cassation concluded that the selling price of the bus corresponds to its average market value and is not undervalued, and the contested transaction does not fall under the concept of suspicious, as committed in the absence of an equivalent counter provision.
The materials of this separate dispute contain sufficient, relevant and acceptable evidence confirming the fact that the disputed transaction was made on market terms. There are no obvious, obvious and significant deviations in the sale price of the bus on significantly unfavorable terms for the debtor. In this case, the court of cassation took into account that the citizen is not affiliated with the debtor, the payment was made to the company's account, therefore, as an ordinary buyer, unreasonable duties and increased standards of proof cannot be imposed on him from the point of view of the requirements of current legislation.
In relation to this separate dispute, due to the defendant's lack of special knowledge in the field of jurisprudence and the standard terms of the concluded transaction, he did not know and could not have known that the debtor was in a state of insolvency, and the purchased bus was being disposed of at an undervalued price.
Photo: Freepik
The court of first instance granted the application, recognizing that the citizen had purchased the bus for an undervalued price, however, he later sold the bus to a third party for a significantly larger amount, which exceeds the price of the disputed contract. The defendant has not provided any evidence of payment of the market price or other counter-performance in favor of the debtor for the acquired property. With this in mind, the court concluded that there was no equivalent counter-performance on the part of the defendant under the contract.
The appeal refused to restore the missed deadline for filing the complaint and returned it.
The Court of Cassation refused to satisfy the application, noting that settlements between the parties under the contested transaction were made through payment to the company's account. The citizen explained that he was not affiliated with the debtor, he learned about the sale of the bus from an advertisement on the site, he called the debtor's representative and agreed to buy the bus.
His expenses for the purchase of a bus amounted to a significant amount (travel, fuel and repairs); the purchase and resale of vehicles is his income-generating activity.
Taking into account the above, the court of cassation concluded that the selling price of the bus corresponds to its average market value and is not undervalued, and the contested transaction does not fall under the concept of suspicious, as committed in the absence of an equivalent counter provision.
The materials of this separate dispute contain sufficient, relevant and acceptable evidence confirming the fact that the disputed transaction was made on market terms. There are no obvious, obvious and significant deviations in the sale price of the bus on significantly unfavorable terms for the debtor. In this case, the court of cassation took into account that the citizen is not affiliated with the debtor, the payment was made to the company's account, therefore, as an ordinary buyer, unreasonable duties and increased standards of proof cannot be imposed on him from the point of view of the requirements of current legislation.
In relation to this separate dispute, due to the defendant's lack of special knowledge in the field of jurisprudence and the standard terms of the concluded transaction, he did not know and could not have known that the debtor was in a state of insolvency, and the purchased bus was being disposed of at an undervalued price.
Photo: Freepik
04.07.2025
