THE SUPREME COURT HAS INDICATED THE LIMITS OF THE CAPABILITIES OF MAJORITY CREDITORS

The fact is that there were two insolvency procedures for the debtor.

Within the framework of the first, the participants were exactly the same majority creditors. During the process, the parties came to a settlement agreement, and the court terminated the proceedings. At that time, another creditor published an announcement of his intention to bankrupt the debtor. Then the creditors of the first bankruptcy procedure filed an application for termination of the settlement agreement.

The court resumed the proceedings in the first case and the bankruptcy proceedings were initiated. As part of this case, the creditors –participants of the first case asked the court to choose a specific manager, backing up their position with the minutes of the meeting.

The courts did not see any violations in this and approved the anti-crisis manager.

However, the Supreme Court indicated that there was at least one more creditor in the case, who appeared after the initiation of the second bankruptcy case, and no one took his opinion into account.

Moreover, the bankruptcy law requires the appointment of the same bankruptcy manager who was appointed before the parties entered into a settlement agreement.

Thus, soon this case will again have to be reconsidered by the court of the first instance, taking into account the indication of the mistakes made (judgment No. 303-ES19-9613 (2) of March 25, 2021).