RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
21/04/2026
Tuesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
21 April 
1970 Russia ratified the agreement on the complete cessation of nuclear tests
1970 Russia ratified the agreement on the complete cessation of nuclear tests
1970 Women in France received a right to vote
1970 Women in France received a right to vote
1970 The new capital of Siam, known as Bangkok, was founded
1970 The new capital of Siam, known as Bangkok, was founded
21 April
1970 Russia ratified the agreement on the complete cessation of nuclear tests
1970 Russia ratified the agreement on the complete cessation of nuclear tests
1970 Women in France received a right to vote
1970 Women in France received a right to vote
1970 The new capital of Siam, known as Bangkok, was founded
1970 The new capital of Siam, known as Bangkok, was founded
THE SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE CARGO ACTUALLY TRANSFERRED TO THE RECIPIENT
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has put an end to the dispute between EREL Logistics and Unibalk by unexpectedly overturning the decisions of three instances at once. Initially, the plaintiff sought to recover almost 136 million rubles. He cited the loss of 9.1 thousand tons of coal as the reason. According to his version, the coal never returned to the owner, but went to a third company.
The Economic Board (SCES of the RF Armed Forces) studied the circumstances differently. It turned out that the lower courts considered the defendant's actions improper in the storage of goods, so they supported the plaintiff's claims. He, in turn, justified the damage through an agreement with his foreign partner on a leisure settlement.
However, the representatives of Unibalk insisted otherwise: the coal was received by the rightful owner, the Czech company Mirifique S.r.o. It was she who acted as the final customer of transportation. The cargo was handed over to the owner himself after the plaintiff seriously delayed the delivery.
When considering the complaint, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation emphasized that there was a freight forwarding agreement between the parties, where storage is only part of the deal. To claim damages, you need three conditions: the fact of the violation, the actual damage, and the direct connection between them.
According to SKES, there was no loss of coal – the goods were delivered to the proper recipient. Moreover, the cargo owner himself did not make any claims to the carriers. So there is no real harm. The court particularly criticized the agreement to which the plaintiff referred: it obliged to compensate for the cost, but it does not prove either the loss itself or its size. And the amount indicated in the papers diverged from the shipping documents.
An important conclusion of the RF Armed Forces is that after completion of transportation, freight forwarders no longer have the obligation to reimburse the cost of the cargo to either the sender or the recipient. Any possible disputes within the chain are just mutual settlements under contracts.
As a result, the decisions of the lower courts were overturned, and the claim was completely dismissed. This case shows a key truth for bankruptcy disputes: internal agreements with third parties do not confirm losses. To recover the money, you need to prove the actual damage and its direct connection with the violation, rather than relying on paper agreements.
Photo: Freepik
The Economic Board (SCES of the RF Armed Forces) studied the circumstances differently. It turned out that the lower courts considered the defendant's actions improper in the storage of goods, so they supported the plaintiff's claims. He, in turn, justified the damage through an agreement with his foreign partner on a leisure settlement.
However, the representatives of Unibalk insisted otherwise: the coal was received by the rightful owner, the Czech company Mirifique S.r.o. It was she who acted as the final customer of transportation. The cargo was handed over to the owner himself after the plaintiff seriously delayed the delivery.
When considering the complaint, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation emphasized that there was a freight forwarding agreement between the parties, where storage is only part of the deal. To claim damages, you need three conditions: the fact of the violation, the actual damage, and the direct connection between them.
According to SKES, there was no loss of coal – the goods were delivered to the proper recipient. Moreover, the cargo owner himself did not make any claims to the carriers. So there is no real harm. The court particularly criticized the agreement to which the plaintiff referred: it obliged to compensate for the cost, but it does not prove either the loss itself or its size. And the amount indicated in the papers diverged from the shipping documents.
An important conclusion of the RF Armed Forces is that after completion of transportation, freight forwarders no longer have the obligation to reimburse the cost of the cargo to either the sender or the recipient. Any possible disputes within the chain are just mutual settlements under contracts.
As a result, the decisions of the lower courts were overturned, and the claim was completely dismissed. This case shows a key truth for bankruptcy disputes: internal agreements with third parties do not confirm losses. To recover the money, you need to prove the actual damage and its direct connection with the violation, rather than relying on paper agreements.
Photo: Freepik
21.04.2026
