THE JUDGES DIDN'T CONSIDER THE MANAGER'S MISTAKE IN SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION AS INACTION

Within the framework of the case on his own bankruptcy, the debtor applied to the arbitration court with a demand to declare the inaction of the financial manager to be illegal. According to the applicant, it consisted in the failure to file a claim to recover unjust enrichment from one of the debtor's counterparties.

The court of the first instance satisfied the claim, having collected the losses in the amount of interest for the use of other people's funds from the manager. The appeal canceled the collection of interest, but upheld the judicial act.

When considering the application in the district court, the board doubted the correctness of the conclusions made by the lower judges.

The fact is that the manager made attempts to recover funds from the debtor's counterparty, but made mistakes in subject-matter jurisdiction. First, he applied to the arbitration court with an independent claim, where the proceedings were terminated due to the subject-matter jurisdiction. Filing a lawsuit there did not give a clear result.

The first instance terminated the proceedings, having indicated that it should have been considered within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings. At the same time, the ruling made by the lower court was canceled by the appeal, and the dispute was sent for consideration to the court of the first instance.

The result of the consideration of the complaint was the conclusion of the board of the district court that the manager's mistake in the subject-matter jurisdiction could not serve as a reason for recognizing his inaction as illegal. Consequently, the earlier decisions of the lower courts were subject to cancellation (decision in case No. А40-110724 / 2016 dated April 14, 2021).