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 LINE BETWEEN ORDINARY BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND PREFERENCE
The debtor's manager appealed to the court with a demand for invalidation of money transfers to the company (case no. A45-30273/22).
In granting the application, the courts of the two instances proceeded from making payments during the period of suspicion, the debtor's signs of insolvency during the disputed period, and the preferential nature of the disputed payments.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that the legal position on ordinary business activities had not been taken into account.
In addition, the district court indicated that until proven otherwise, it is assumed that all transactions of the debtor, in respect of which the moratorium was in effect, were carried out in the framework of ordinary business activities. If the counterparty actually had information about the debtor's signs of insolvency or insufficient property, which occurred on grounds unrelated to the introduction of a moratorium, then such a transaction may be declared invalid.
In fact, the law establishes the presumption of attributing transactions made during the moratorium period to transactions made in the framework of ordinary business activities. The bankruptcy trustee is responsible for refuting this presumption.
The supply relationship between the debtor and the defendant corresponded to the debtor's main activity and was of a long-term nature. The delivery agreement under which the disputed payments were made is a framework agreement providing for the repeated delivery of goods.
The courts have not investigated the differences regarding the actual amount of debt incurred in connection with the delivery of goods, the procedure for its repayment and the determination of which delivery the funds were sent to.
The manager has not provided evidence of the difference between the disputed payments and other payments made during the ongoing business relationship between the debtor and the defendant. The presumption of ignorance about the debtor's signs of insolvency has not been refuted.
The courts also did not evaluate the defendant's arguments about the typicality of disputed payments and similar payments made earlier, as well as the debtor's settlements with other counterparties, payment of wages, taxes and insurance premiums. The conclusions of the lower courts on the late payment are irrelevant in relation to the procedure for challenging transactions made during the moratorium period, due to the established different presumption of proof.
Photo: Freepik
In granting the application, the courts of the two instances proceeded from making payments during the period of suspicion, the debtor's signs of insolvency during the disputed period, and the preferential nature of the disputed payments.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that the legal position on ordinary business activities had not been taken into account.
In addition, the district court indicated that until proven otherwise, it is assumed that all transactions of the debtor, in respect of which the moratorium was in effect, were carried out in the framework of ordinary business activities. If the counterparty actually had information about the debtor's signs of insolvency or insufficient property, which occurred on grounds unrelated to the introduction of a moratorium, then such a transaction may be declared invalid.
In fact, the law establishes the presumption of attributing transactions made during the moratorium period to transactions made in the framework of ordinary business activities. The bankruptcy trustee is responsible for refuting this presumption.
The supply relationship between the debtor and the defendant corresponded to the debtor's main activity and was of a long-term nature. The delivery agreement under which the disputed payments were made is a framework agreement providing for the repeated delivery of goods.
The courts have not investigated the differences regarding the actual amount of debt incurred in connection with the delivery of goods, the procedure for its repayment and the determination of which delivery the funds were sent to.
The manager has not provided evidence of the difference between the disputed payments and other payments made during the ongoing business relationship between the debtor and the defendant. The presumption of ignorance about the debtor's signs of insolvency has not been refuted.
The courts also did not evaluate the defendant's arguments about the typicality of disputed payments and similar payments made earlier, as well as the debtor's settlements with other counterparties, payment of wages, taxes and insurance premiums. The conclusions of the lower courts on the late payment are irrelevant in relation to the procedure for challenging transactions made during the moratorium period, due to the established different presumption of proof.
Photo: Freepik
04.09.2025
