RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
09/04/2026
Thursday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
9 April 
1928 Islam became the official religion of Turkey
1928 Islam became the official religion of Turkey
1699 Peter the Great issued a decree on cleanliness in Moscow with a punishment for throwing litter on the streets and alleys
1699 Peter the Great issued a decree on cleanliness in Moscow with a punishment for throwing litter on the streets and alleys
1667 Paris hosted the world's first public art exhibition
1667 Paris hosted the world's first public art exhibition
9 April
1928 Islam became the official religion of Turkey
1928 Islam became the official religion of Turkey
1699 Peter the Great issued a decree on cleanliness in Moscow with a punishment for throwing litter on the streets and alleys
1699 Peter the Great issued a decree on cleanliness in Moscow with a punishment for throwing litter on the streets and alleys
1667 Paris hosted the world's first public art exhibition
1667 Paris hosted the world's first public art exhibition
THE LOSS OF THE COLLATERAL ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH TO CONCLUDE THAT THE DEBTOR IS IN BAD FAITH
The manager petitioned the court to complete the procedure for the sale of the debtor's property (case no. A41-35190/24).
The Court of first instance, having established the absence of any signs of deliberate bankruptcy and dishonesty of the debtor during the conduct of the procedure, concluded that it was possible to apply the rules on release from obligations to the debtor, including those that were not stated during the conduct of the procedure.
The appeal refused to release the debtor from his obligations to the bank, pointing to the debtor's lack of good faith in the loss of the collateral.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance and noted that, contrary to the statements of the appellate instance, the mere fact of including the car in the bankruptcy estate has no legal significance when deciding whether to release the debtor from obligations. The absence of the pledged object in the debtor's possession due to its theft does not really terminate the debtor's ownership rights to the car and the creditor's pledge, respectively, if the vehicle is found, the creditor will not be deprived of the opportunity to foreclose on it.
The fact that the bank was informed about the car theft two months later than the theft itself does not indicate the debtor's bad faith. The debtor, being a mother of many children, continued to make payments on the loan for three more years after the theft, which, on the contrary, indicates that he was making every effort to repay the loan. The board of the district court also disagreed with the conclusion of the appellate instance that the theft was the result of the debtor's negligence. This statement is not based on any evidence.
Photo: Freepik
The Court of first instance, having established the absence of any signs of deliberate bankruptcy and dishonesty of the debtor during the conduct of the procedure, concluded that it was possible to apply the rules on release from obligations to the debtor, including those that were not stated during the conduct of the procedure.
The appeal refused to release the debtor from his obligations to the bank, pointing to the debtor's lack of good faith in the loss of the collateral.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance and noted that, contrary to the statements of the appellate instance, the mere fact of including the car in the bankruptcy estate has no legal significance when deciding whether to release the debtor from obligations. The absence of the pledged object in the debtor's possession due to its theft does not really terminate the debtor's ownership rights to the car and the creditor's pledge, respectively, if the vehicle is found, the creditor will not be deprived of the opportunity to foreclose on it.
The fact that the bank was informed about the car theft two months later than the theft itself does not indicate the debtor's bad faith. The debtor, being a mother of many children, continued to make payments on the loan for three more years after the theft, which, on the contrary, indicates that he was making every effort to repay the loan. The board of the district court also disagreed with the conclusion of the appellate instance that the theft was the result of the debtor's negligence. This statement is not based on any evidence.
Photo: Freepik
09.04.2026
