RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
01/04/2026
Wednesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
1 April 
2021 Fools’ Day
2020 April Fools’ Day
2001 The world's first gay marriage took place in the Netherlands
2001 The world's first gay marriage took place in the Netherlands
1778 Oliver Pollock, a businessman from New Orleans, introduced the “$” sign
1778 Oliver Pollock, a businessman from New Orleans, introduced the “$” sign
1 April
2021 Fools’ Day
2020 April Fools’ Day
2001 The world's first gay marriage took place in the Netherlands
2001 The world's first gay marriage took place in the Netherlands
1778 Oliver Pollock, a businessman from New Orleans, introduced the “$” sign
1778 Oliver Pollock, a businessman from New Orleans, introduced the “$” sign
THE MOMENT OF TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT VERSUS THE DATE OF DELAY IN PERFORMANCE
The creditor applied to the court for inclusion of the claim in the debtor's register (case no. A40-193789/19).
The courts of two instances refused to satisfy the application, based on the omission of the limitation period.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that the limitation period for claims for damages should be calculated from the date of termination of the investment contract, and not from the date of expiration of the construction period, since the right to recover such damages arises only after the termination of the contract. Consequently, the application was filed within the three-year limitation period, calculated from the date of entry into force of the judicial act on termination of the contract.
In refusing to satisfy the claim, the courts proceeded from the fact that the creditor's material interest was fully satisfied with the transfer of the land plot to the city. However, the main property interest of the creditor was not in obtaining income from the lease of the land, but in acquiring ownership of 40% of the non-residential area of the facility. This interest was not satisfied, as the facility has not been built and 40% of its area has not been transferred to the lender.
The city did not commit to the construction of the facility in full, and even more so to transfer part of it to the creditor's ownership. Even if the construction of the facility had been completed by a third party, this would not deprive the creditor of the right to demand compensation from the debtor for losses caused by its non-performance.
The terms of the contract on the absence of liability of the debtor under the agreements and mutual settlements of the creditor with third parties do not apply to disputed relations, since the claim for damages is based on the debtor's own failure to fulfill its obligations to the creditor.
An agreement concluded in advance on the elimination or limitation of liability does not release from liability for intentional violation of an obligation. The termination of the contract is due to significant violations on the part of the debtor, who for a long time (since 2018) has not fulfilled construction obligations, which indicates the presence of intent. In the framework of arbitration cases, circumstances of prejudicial importance to the present dispute have already been established, but the courts of the first and appellate instances did not take these circumstances into account, which led to erroneous conclusions.
Photo: Freepik
The courts of two instances refused to satisfy the application, based on the omission of the limitation period.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that the limitation period for claims for damages should be calculated from the date of termination of the investment contract, and not from the date of expiration of the construction period, since the right to recover such damages arises only after the termination of the contract. Consequently, the application was filed within the three-year limitation period, calculated from the date of entry into force of the judicial act on termination of the contract.
In refusing to satisfy the claim, the courts proceeded from the fact that the creditor's material interest was fully satisfied with the transfer of the land plot to the city. However, the main property interest of the creditor was not in obtaining income from the lease of the land, but in acquiring ownership of 40% of the non-residential area of the facility. This interest was not satisfied, as the facility has not been built and 40% of its area has not been transferred to the lender.
The city did not commit to the construction of the facility in full, and even more so to transfer part of it to the creditor's ownership. Even if the construction of the facility had been completed by a third party, this would not deprive the creditor of the right to demand compensation from the debtor for losses caused by its non-performance.
The terms of the contract on the absence of liability of the debtor under the agreements and mutual settlements of the creditor with third parties do not apply to disputed relations, since the claim for damages is based on the debtor's own failure to fulfill its obligations to the creditor.
An agreement concluded in advance on the elimination or limitation of liability does not release from liability for intentional violation of an obligation. The termination of the contract is due to significant violations on the part of the debtor, who for a long time (since 2018) has not fulfilled construction obligations, which indicates the presence of intent. In the framework of arbitration cases, circumstances of prejudicial importance to the present dispute have already been established, but the courts of the first and appellate instances did not take these circumstances into account, which led to erroneous conclusions.
Photo: Freepik
30.03.2026
