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 RIGHT TO SUBSEQUENT COMPENSATION UPON TRANSFER OF THE FACILITY TO THE TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
The creditor applied to the court with a claim for compensation for non-residential premises that were acquired under a shared-equity construction agreement and will not be transferred due to the debtor's bankruptcy and the transfer of the developer's rights and obligations to the fund (case no. A17-2786/16).
The court of first instance partially satisfied the application and considered that the creditor could receive subsequent compensation, the amount of which would be calculated from the net profit of the fund received by the latter following the completion of the project to complete the problematic facility. The court proceeded from the fact that the creditor has the right to receive compensation, the total amount of which is to be determined taking into account the amount of the fund's net profit earned through the sale of premises in the completed facility.
The appeal changed the definition, pointing out that the fund's supervisory board decided to finance measures to pay compensation to citizens participating in shared–equity construction. The fund did not take a decision on financing measures to complete the construction of the disputed facility.
The Court of Appeal found that in such circumstances there is no set of conditions for the payment of subsequent compensation to the creditor, as there is no prospect of the fund receiving a net profit.
The cassation court overturned the ruling in part, leaving in force the ruling of the first instance, since the court of appeal had no legal grounds for changing the ruling of the court of first instance and excluding from it the conclusions on the allocation and suspension of proceedings on the issue of determining the amount of subsequent compensation.
The amount of subsequent compensation is determined based on the amount of the net proceeds of the fund received as a result of the sale of a land plot with an object (objects) under construction located on it, minus the costs associated with such sale, as well as the costs of maintaining and protecting the property being sold.
Photo: Freepik
The court of first instance partially satisfied the application and considered that the creditor could receive subsequent compensation, the amount of which would be calculated from the net profit of the fund received by the latter following the completion of the project to complete the problematic facility. The court proceeded from the fact that the creditor has the right to receive compensation, the total amount of which is to be determined taking into account the amount of the fund's net profit earned through the sale of premises in the completed facility.
The appeal changed the definition, pointing out that the fund's supervisory board decided to finance measures to pay compensation to citizens participating in shared–equity construction. The fund did not take a decision on financing measures to complete the construction of the disputed facility.
The Court of Appeal found that in such circumstances there is no set of conditions for the payment of subsequent compensation to the creditor, as there is no prospect of the fund receiving a net profit.
The cassation court overturned the ruling in part, leaving in force the ruling of the first instance, since the court of appeal had no legal grounds for changing the ruling of the court of first instance and excluding from it the conclusions on the allocation and suspension of proceedings on the issue of determining the amount of subsequent compensation.
The amount of subsequent compensation is determined based on the amount of the net proceeds of the fund received as a result of the sale of a land plot with an object (objects) under construction located on it, minus the costs associated with such sale, as well as the costs of maintaining and protecting the property being sold.
Photo: Freepik
23.06.2025
