THE SUPREME COURT ASSESSED THE DISCOUNT IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE BANKRUPTCY OF ONE OF THE PARTIES

THE SUPREME COURT ASSESSED THE DISCOUNT IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE BANKRUPTCY OF ONE OF THE PARTIES

THE SUPREME COURT ASSESSED THE DISCOUNT IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE BANKRUPTCY OF ONE OF THE PARTIES
The Supreme Court considered a complaint in the case of challenging the settlement agreement (No. A56-3724/20). As part of the dispute over the recovery of debts under the lease agreement and losses, the parties concluded a settlement agreement, under which the plaintiff waived part of the claims against the defendant, the parties agreed that the defendant would voluntarily transfer funds to the plaintiff to satisfy his claims.


Subsequently, the plaintiff was declared bankrupt, and his manager tried to challenge this settlement agreement, believing that the debtor received less under this agreement than could and should have been received, than the creditors were harmed.

The district court canceled the ruling of the first instance on the termination of proceedings in the case and the approval of the settlement agreement on the basis of the arguments of the manager.

The Supreme Court annulled the cassation ruling, noting that the provision of a "discount" from the total amount of claims claimed, taking into account the ambiguity of the prospects for considering the dispute on recovery of damages and subsequent execution of the judicial act, does not indicate the dishonesty of the actions of the parties, their focus on the withdrawal of assets from the bankruptcy estate.

Separately, the court noted that the cancellation of the ruling on the approval of a settlement agreement can take place only after the fullest possible study of the impact of such an agreement on the debtor's solvency and its assessment for the presence of harm to creditors, since in the framework of a new dispute review, the conclusion of the same settlement agreement will be a priori impossible due to the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against one of the parties.

Thus, the Supreme Court once again stressed that disputes on the recovery of damages, in comparison with other types of litigation, have the least predictable prospects, which is why only a discount at the conclusion of a settlement agreement cannot indicate an intention to harm third parties, for such a conclusion it is necessary to investigate a set of factors.


Photo by Freepik


21.06.2023