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 MANAGER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR MISSING THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPLENISH THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE
The financial manager appealed to the debtor's former manager with a claim for recovery of losses incurred due to improper performance of duties on the formation of the debtor's bankruptcy estate (case no. A10-3596/17).
The courts of two instances refused to satisfy the claims for damages, based on the fact that the debtor's actions to mislead the financial manager, the court and creditors by applying sequentially for approval of the restructuring plan and approval of the settlement agreement without having any real possibilities for their execution, led to a delay in measures to challenge the debtor's transactions. In addition, transactions involving the alienation of property committed by the debtor may be taken into account when deciding whether to release him from further fulfillment of obligations to creditors, rather than as a basis for holding the arbitration administrator liable in the form of damages.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, noting that the financial manager's inaction in challenging the debtor's transactions that could restore his property status and ensure settlements with creditors could not be explained solely by arguments about the sufficiency of property to fulfill the debt restructuring plan. These arguments do not take into account legally significant circumstances of the case, such as the likelihood of satisfaction of claims for recognition of disputed transactions as invalid and the possibility of replenishment of the debtor's bankruptcy estate.
The District Court also noted that the approved debt restructuring plan does not change the procedure for the limitation period for challenging the debtor's transactions and does not relieve the financial manager from the obligation to take all measures in his power to challenge such transactions.
Additionally, it is stated that during the new consideration of the dispute, the court needs to check the prospects of challenging transactions in respect of disputed property, the likelihood of satisfying the relevant claims and the possibility of replenishing the debtor's bankruptcy estate. These circumstances were not established by the lower courts, which is the basis for the cancellation of judicial acts and the referral of the case for a new hearing.
Photo: Freepik
The courts of two instances refused to satisfy the claims for damages, based on the fact that the debtor's actions to mislead the financial manager, the court and creditors by applying sequentially for approval of the restructuring plan and approval of the settlement agreement without having any real possibilities for their execution, led to a delay in measures to challenge the debtor's transactions. In addition, transactions involving the alienation of property committed by the debtor may be taken into account when deciding whether to release him from further fulfillment of obligations to creditors, rather than as a basis for holding the arbitration administrator liable in the form of damages.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, noting that the financial manager's inaction in challenging the debtor's transactions that could restore his property status and ensure settlements with creditors could not be explained solely by arguments about the sufficiency of property to fulfill the debt restructuring plan. These arguments do not take into account legally significant circumstances of the case, such as the likelihood of satisfaction of claims for recognition of disputed transactions as invalid and the possibility of replenishment of the debtor's bankruptcy estate.
The District Court also noted that the approved debt restructuring plan does not change the procedure for the limitation period for challenging the debtor's transactions and does not relieve the financial manager from the obligation to take all measures in his power to challenge such transactions.
Additionally, it is stated that during the new consideration of the dispute, the court needs to check the prospects of challenging transactions in respect of disputed property, the likelihood of satisfying the relevant claims and the possibility of replenishing the debtor's bankruptcy estate. These circumstances were not established by the lower courts, which is the basis for the cancellation of judicial acts and the referral of the case for a new hearing.
Photo: Freepik
03.12.2025
