THE SUPREME COURT EXPLAINED THE NUANCES OF CALCULATING THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR THE SUBSIDY

In support of the application, it was pointed out that the debt to the creditor - the electric grid company under the technological connection agreement and the failure of the defendant to declare the company insolvent after the onset of insolvency.

The first instance refused, referring to the omission of the statute of limitations.

The higher courts overturned the ruling, pointing out that the head had to initiate the debtor's bankruptcy process no later than the date of the delay in the obligation to the creditor, which he did not do. At the same time, the court proceeded from the fact that the company had a delay in fulfilling the obligation to make quarterly payments on the basis of an agreement on the implementation of technological connection to electric networks concluded with the creditor. The amount of subsidiary liability is determined by the court based on the amount of obligations arising after the specified date.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation sent the dispute for a new consideration, noting that the courts of appeal and the district mistakenly identified the term of the obligation with the term of its execution.

At the same time, in the case under consideration, the court of appeal correctly linked the beginning of the limitation period with a subjective moment – the moment of the creditor's awareness of the existence of grounds for bringing to subsidiary liability, including the insufficiency of the debtor's assets for settlements with all creditors. The conclusion of the court of first instance on the need to calculate the limitation period from the moment the debtor is declared bankrupt is erroneous.

Photo: Freepik