RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
24/06/2026
Wednesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
24 June 
1970 Leonid Brezhnev announced during a visit to the United States that the Cold War was over.
1970 Leonid Brezhnev announced during a visit to the United States that the Cold War was over.
1970 Nikita Khrushchev promised the US Vice President Richard Nixon to show him “The Kuzkin’s mother”.
1970 Nikita Khrushchev promised the US Vice President Richard Nixon to show him “The Kuzkin’s mother”.
1970 The Victory Parade on the Red Square was commanded by G.K. Zhukov and K.K. Rokossovsky.
1970 The Victory Parade on the Red Square was commanded by G.K. Zhukov and K.K. Rokossovsky.
24 June
1970 Leonid Brezhnev announced during a visit to the United States that the Cold War was over.
1970 Leonid Brezhnev announced during a visit to the United States that the Cold War was over.
1970 Nikita Khrushchev promised the US Vice President Richard Nixon to show him “The Kuzkin’s mother”.
1970 Nikita Khrushchev promised the US Vice President Richard Nixon to show him “The Kuzkin’s mother”.
1970 The Victory Parade on the Red Square was commanded by G.K. Zhukov and K.K. Rokossovsky.
1970 The Victory Parade on the Red Square was commanded by G.K. Zhukov and K.K. Rokossovsky.
THE LIMITS OF DISCRETION OF THE BUYER OF VEHICLES IN CASE OF BANKRUPTCY OF THE SELLER
The manager applied to the court for invalidation of transactions: purchase and sale agreements (case no. A47-6853/23).
In rejecting the application, the court of first instance concluded that the transactions contested in the present dispute were not intended to withdraw the debtor's assets, they were real and retaliatory, and as a result of their commission, the property was removed from the debtor's possession and is in the possession of a bona fide acquirer.
The appeal satisfied the application, since neither the defendant nor the former director of the debtor disclosed the circumstances of the conclusion and execution of contracts, did not provide documents on the transfer of funds, did not substantiate the reasons for not depositing money into the company's account, the former director did not provide explanations and documentary evidence of the expenditure of funds received from the defendant.
The court also found it unproven that the defendant had the financial ability to purchase equipment for a significant amount (including due to the failure to provide evidence of money withdrawal from the account by a cousin to provide the defendant).
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance, stating the following. The court of appeal's conclusion that the circumstances of the transactions were not disclosed obviously did not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case – both the defendants and the debtor's beneficiaries (the sole participant in the company) gave detailed, non-contradictory explanations regarding the nature and reasons for the sale of property, the settlement procedure and why the settlement method was not used. the company's account.
The manager did not dispute the blocking of the company's accounts, did not deny the transfer of cash documents to him, objections were raised only about the amount of current expenses, however, these objections do not affect the assessment of the legality of the transaction.
The failure of the beneficiary of the company to deposit the funds received into the company's cash register, as well as their spending, is not a risk to the buyer of the property, and the adverse consequences of unfair actions of persons controlling the debtor cannot be attributed to him. These conclusions of the court are logical, consistent, based on evidence and consistent with the actual circumstances of the case.
The motives related to the fact that the previous owner (the meat processing plant) sold the property in the surveillance procedure are untenable. Based on the established procedure for making transactions for the purchase and sale of vehicles on the secondary market, the issue of the viability of one or another owner of the purchased vehicle (not the seller directly) is not included in the subject of verification carried out by an independent buyer.
In rejecting the application, the court of first instance concluded that the transactions contested in the present dispute were not intended to withdraw the debtor's assets, they were real and retaliatory, and as a result of their commission, the property was removed from the debtor's possession and is in the possession of a bona fide acquirer.
The appeal satisfied the application, since neither the defendant nor the former director of the debtor disclosed the circumstances of the conclusion and execution of contracts, did not provide documents on the transfer of funds, did not substantiate the reasons for not depositing money into the company's account, the former director did not provide explanations and documentary evidence of the expenditure of funds received from the defendant.
The court also found it unproven that the defendant had the financial ability to purchase equipment for a significant amount (including due to the failure to provide evidence of money withdrawal from the account by a cousin to provide the defendant).
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance, stating the following. The court of appeal's conclusion that the circumstances of the transactions were not disclosed obviously did not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case – both the defendants and the debtor's beneficiaries (the sole participant in the company) gave detailed, non-contradictory explanations regarding the nature and reasons for the sale of property, the settlement procedure and why the settlement method was not used. the company's account.
The manager did not dispute the blocking of the company's accounts, did not deny the transfer of cash documents to him, objections were raised only about the amount of current expenses, however, these objections do not affect the assessment of the legality of the transaction.
The failure of the beneficiary of the company to deposit the funds received into the company's cash register, as well as their spending, is not a risk to the buyer of the property, and the adverse consequences of unfair actions of persons controlling the debtor cannot be attributed to him. These conclusions of the court are logical, consistent, based on evidence and consistent with the actual circumstances of the case.
The motives related to the fact that the previous owner (the meat processing plant) sold the property in the surveillance procedure are untenable. Based on the established procedure for making transactions for the purchase and sale of vehicles on the secondary market, the issue of the viability of one or another owner of the purchased vehicle (not the seller directly) is not included in the subject of verification carried out by an independent buyer.
19.06.2026
