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 SUPREME COURT CLARIFIED THE CONDITIONS FOR ATTRACTING SRO TO THE SUBSIDY DUE TO BANKRUPT CONTRACTORS
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the decisions of the lower courts. The court confirmed that a self–regulatory organization (SRO) can be involved in a subsidy if it has not fulfilled the obligations of its participant, a contractor declared bankrupt.
The reason for the trial was an application filed by a Crimean government agency. The Investment and Construction Management (plaintiff) appealed to the Association of Construction Organizations of Tatarstan (defendant), demanding 2.44 million rubles in penalties and penalties under the state contract. Under the contract, the contractor, Stroycomtech, has not fulfilled its obligations.
The contract itself was signed in August 2018. It was signed by the contracting organization and the Capital Construction Service of the Crimea. The plaintiff received the rights of the customer from her.
The contractor has not submitted acts on the intended use of the advance received. As a result, the customer sent a claim, which remained unanswered. Later, Stroykomtech was under surveillance, and then could be declared bankrupt. But the case did not receive further progress, as a suitable candidate for the role of AU was not found.
The plaintiff sent his appeal to the court. The institution considered that the self-regulating organization, which included the contractor at the time of the transaction, should be involved in the subsidy. The courts of three instances sided with the state institution, pointing out that the company was a member of the SRO, the terms of the contract were violated, and the court decision on recovery was not fulfilled. In addition, it was found that the amount of claims is less than the allowable limit of 25% of the size of the SRO compensation fund.
Additionally, a report provided by the bankruptcy trustee was included in the case file. It followed that the debtor had no assets to cover the necessary expenses and creditors' claims.
The Supreme Court, having studied the arguments of the cassation, found no grounds to transfer this complaint to the Economic Collegium (SCEC). The decisions of the lower courts were upheld. As a result, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation confirmed: in the event that the contractor's violation of obligations is proven and the recovery mechanisms have been exhausted, the customer has the right to seek compensation at the expense of the SRO in which the participant who violated the contract was.
Photo: Freepik
The reason for the trial was an application filed by a Crimean government agency. The Investment and Construction Management (plaintiff) appealed to the Association of Construction Organizations of Tatarstan (defendant), demanding 2.44 million rubles in penalties and penalties under the state contract. Under the contract, the contractor, Stroycomtech, has not fulfilled its obligations.
The contract itself was signed in August 2018. It was signed by the contracting organization and the Capital Construction Service of the Crimea. The plaintiff received the rights of the customer from her.
The contractor has not submitted acts on the intended use of the advance received. As a result, the customer sent a claim, which remained unanswered. Later, Stroykomtech was under surveillance, and then could be declared bankrupt. But the case did not receive further progress, as a suitable candidate for the role of AU was not found.
The plaintiff sent his appeal to the court. The institution considered that the self-regulating organization, which included the contractor at the time of the transaction, should be involved in the subsidy. The courts of three instances sided with the state institution, pointing out that the company was a member of the SRO, the terms of the contract were violated, and the court decision on recovery was not fulfilled. In addition, it was found that the amount of claims is less than the allowable limit of 25% of the size of the SRO compensation fund.
Additionally, a report provided by the bankruptcy trustee was included in the case file. It followed that the debtor had no assets to cover the necessary expenses and creditors' claims.
The Supreme Court, having studied the arguments of the cassation, found no grounds to transfer this complaint to the Economic Collegium (SCEC). The decisions of the lower courts were upheld. As a result, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation confirmed: in the event that the contractor's violation of obligations is proven and the recovery mechanisms have been exhausted, the customer has the right to seek compensation at the expense of the SRO in which the participant who violated the contract was.
Photo: Freepik
19.06.2025
