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 MINISTRY OF CULTURE DEMANDS TO RECOVER THE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED SUBSIDY FROM SOYUZMULTFILM.
The Moscow Arbitration Court (AS GM) has become the scene of a financial dispute between the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation and the legendary Soyuzmultfilm film studio. The agency insists on the compulsory recovery of public funds from the enterprise, previously provided as targeted support. The amount of claims consists of the principal debt exceeding 60 million rubles and significant interest for the illegal, in the plaintiff's opinion, use of this money, which is estimated at more than 71 million rubles.
The initiation of the trial dates back to the spring of this year. The first meeting was held in June, but then the parties did not come to a final decision, and the case was postponed. Another attempt to resolve the conflict is scheduled for mid-August. At the same time, the official documents of the court do not contain detailed explanations of the motives of the filed claim, leaving room for interpretation.
The defendant's camp explained that the subsidy, dated back to 2013, was the subject of disagreement. That money was allocated for the needs of technical renovation and reconstruction of studio facilities. The money was transferred through the bank "Russian Credit", which at that time was an authorized organization for conducting such operations. The studio claims that it strictly followed the regulations and regulations in force during the period of receiving the subsidy.
The whole complexity of the situation rests on force majeure, which occurred in October 2015. It was then that the intermediary bank was officially declared insolvent by the decision of the same Moscow Arbitration Court. For Soyuzmultfilm, this meant that the budget millions intended for development were physically stuck in the collapsed financial structure and never reached the final beneficiary.
Representatives of the film studio insist that financing has remained unattainable for them. After the financial institution went bankrupt, the company's management immediately applied to the Central Bank for official explanations.
The regulator proposed to act strictly within the framework of the law and include the studio's requirements in the register of creditors of the third stage. This procedure was carried out in accordance with the established procedure, however, despite all attempts and actions provided for by law, the accounts receivable to the studio were not repaid.
The current legal dispute has become a logical continuation of the events of a decade ago. The funds budgeted for modernization were lost not through the recipient's fault, but as a result of the collapse of the credit institution. Now the arbitration will have to determine who will bear the burden of responsibility for these financial losses. The outcome of the litigation will determine whether a bona fide recipient should pay for the consequences of the bankruptcy of the intermediary through which the government financing passed.
The initiation of the trial dates back to the spring of this year. The first meeting was held in June, but then the parties did not come to a final decision, and the case was postponed. Another attempt to resolve the conflict is scheduled for mid-August. At the same time, the official documents of the court do not contain detailed explanations of the motives of the filed claim, leaving room for interpretation.
The defendant's camp explained that the subsidy, dated back to 2013, was the subject of disagreement. That money was allocated for the needs of technical renovation and reconstruction of studio facilities. The money was transferred through the bank "Russian Credit", which at that time was an authorized organization for conducting such operations. The studio claims that it strictly followed the regulations and regulations in force during the period of receiving the subsidy.
The whole complexity of the situation rests on force majeure, which occurred in October 2015. It was then that the intermediary bank was officially declared insolvent by the decision of the same Moscow Arbitration Court. For Soyuzmultfilm, this meant that the budget millions intended for development were physically stuck in the collapsed financial structure and never reached the final beneficiary.
Representatives of the film studio insist that financing has remained unattainable for them. After the financial institution went bankrupt, the company's management immediately applied to the Central Bank for official explanations.
The regulator proposed to act strictly within the framework of the law and include the studio's requirements in the register of creditors of the third stage. This procedure was carried out in accordance with the established procedure, however, despite all attempts and actions provided for by law, the accounts receivable to the studio were not repaid.
The current legal dispute has become a logical continuation of the events of a decade ago. The funds budgeted for modernization were lost not through the recipient's fault, but as a result of the collapse of the credit institution. Now the arbitration will have to determine who will bear the burden of responsibility for these financial losses. The outcome of the litigation will determine whether a bona fide recipient should pay for the consequences of the bankruptcy of the intermediary through which the government financing passed.
18.06.2026
