RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
31/05/2026
Sunday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
31 May 
1970 World No Tobacco Day.
1970 World No Tobacco Day.
1970 The proclamation of independence of the South Africa from the Great Britain.
1970 The proclamation of independence of the South Africa from the Great Britain.
1970 The Trans-Siberian Railway was laid in Vladivostok.
1970 The Trans-Siberian Railway was laid in Vladivostok.
31 May
1970 World No Tobacco Day.
1970 World No Tobacco Day.
1970 The proclamation of independence of the South Africa from the Great Britain.
1970 The proclamation of independence of the South Africa from the Great Britain.
1970 The Trans-Siberian Railway was laid in Vladivostok.
1970 The Trans-Siberian Railway was laid in Vladivostok.
THE SUBTLETIES OF LOWERING THE PRIORITY OF CLAIMS OF FORMER SPOUSES OF CONTROLLING PERSONS
The creditor applied to the court for the inclusion of claims in the debtor's register (case no. A12-13112/23).
The Court of First instance partially included the claim for the register, guided by the fact that the claim was filed by a creditor affiliated with the debtor and represents a claim for the return of compensation financing. The court of first instance stated that the creditor is the former spouse of the majority participant of the debtor, who owns a share in the authorized capital of the company. The creditor and the majority participant were actually in a marital relationship, ran a joint household, and lived at the same address.
In refusing to satisfy the creditor's application for recognition as justified and inclusion of the rest of the claim in the register, the court proceeded from the lack of evidence of the actual provision of services to the debtor by a third party.
The appeal changed the definition regarding the size of the claim, including a claim for a large amount.
The cassation referred the dispute for reconsideration and pointed out the following:
The Court of First instance partially included the claim for the register, guided by the fact that the claim was filed by a creditor affiliated with the debtor and represents a claim for the return of compensation financing. The court of first instance stated that the creditor is the former spouse of the majority participant of the debtor, who owns a share in the authorized capital of the company. The creditor and the majority participant were actually in a marital relationship, ran a joint household, and lived at the same address.
In refusing to satisfy the creditor's application for recognition as justified and inclusion of the rest of the claim in the register, the court proceeded from the lack of evidence of the actual provision of services to the debtor by a third party.
The appeal changed the definition regarding the size of the claim, including a claim for a large amount.
The cassation referred the dispute for reconsideration and pointed out the following:
- By lowering the priority of satisfaction of the creditor's claim, the courts qualified the payments made by him in favor of the debtor and his counterparties as hidden compensatory financing of the debtor in the context of his property crisis. However, insisting on including the debt in the third row of the debtor's creditors' register, the creditor argued that part of the loans and payments for the debtor had been made during the period of the moratorium on bankruptcy proceedings.
- The courts did not determine which part of the creditor's claims, which were recognized as justified, fell during the period of the moratorium and did not determine the order of their satisfaction.
- In refusing to recognize the creditor's claim for the amount as justified, the courts proceeded from the lack of evidence of the actual provision of services to the debtor by a third party.
- Meanwhile, the courts did not take into account that the creditor is not a party to the contract; it follows from the payment orders available in the case file that the creditor made a partial payment under the contract concluded between the debtor and a third party.
- In this case, having limited themselves to pointing out the lack of evidence of the actual provision of services to the debtor by a third party, the courts did not include in the subject of judicial investigation the circumstances of whether there was an agreement underlying the imposition by the company of the fulfillment of its obligations to a third party on the creditor, what motives prompted the creditor to fulfill the obligations of the debtor to another person.
29.05.2026
