RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/02/2026
Thursday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 February 
1979 Iran became an Islamic state
1979 Iran became an Islamic state
1952 The first traffic light for pedestrians appeared in New York
1952 The first traffic light for pedestrians appeared in New York
1928 Vitamin D was artificially synthesized
1928 Vitamin D was artificially synthesized
5 February
1979 Iran became an Islamic state
1979 Iran became an Islamic state
1952 The first traffic light for pedestrians appeared in New York
1952 The first traffic light for pedestrians appeared in New York
1928 Vitamin D was artificially synthesized
1928 Vitamin D was artificially synthesized
THE SUPREME COURT WILL ASSESS THE LEGALITY OF OFFSETTING BEFORE BANKRUPTCY
In the framework of the bankruptcy arbitration case of Arks MT (No. A40-161457/2021), a key issue arose about the legality of offsetting (balancing) claims on the eve of insolvency. The dispute concerns payments of 626 million transferred to the subcontractor Advansstroy under a contract shortly before the initiation of proceedings in court.
The bankruptcy trustee (CC) has sent its appeal to arbitration, demanding that these transactions be declared invalid. He pointed out that the transfers were made during a period of suspicion. As a result, the claims of one creditor were satisfied, giving him an unjustified advantage, to the detriment of others. This is a direct violation of the principle of proportionality in bankruptcy.
The first instance of the Moscow Arbitration Court (AS GM) partially satisfied these requirements, canceling one of the payments (230 million rubles). However, the appeal and the District Court proceeded from the opposite position on this issue. They considered that it was the balancing of mutual obligations within the framework of contractual relations that took place, and not the usual repayment of debt. The courts also noted that the plaintiff had not proven that the subcontractor was aware of the customer's insolvency at the time of the settlement.
Disagreeing with this interpretation, KU complained to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. In his position, he insists that there were no counter-obligations at the time of the payments, which means that the operation is not a netting. In his opinion, this led to the fact that the assets were unfairly eliminated from the competitive mass. This falls under the grounds of a challenge under article 61.3 of the Bankruptcy Act.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, having examined the materials, considered the arguments of the CU justified for referring the dispute to its Economic Board. Thus, the highest court should assess whether such calculations under the contract can be qualified as acceptable balancing or whether they represent an unlawful preference of one creditor.
Photo: Freepik
The bankruptcy trustee (CC) has sent its appeal to arbitration, demanding that these transactions be declared invalid. He pointed out that the transfers were made during a period of suspicion. As a result, the claims of one creditor were satisfied, giving him an unjustified advantage, to the detriment of others. This is a direct violation of the principle of proportionality in bankruptcy.
The first instance of the Moscow Arbitration Court (AS GM) partially satisfied these requirements, canceling one of the payments (230 million rubles). However, the appeal and the District Court proceeded from the opposite position on this issue. They considered that it was the balancing of mutual obligations within the framework of contractual relations that took place, and not the usual repayment of debt. The courts also noted that the plaintiff had not proven that the subcontractor was aware of the customer's insolvency at the time of the settlement.
Disagreeing with this interpretation, KU complained to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. In his position, he insists that there were no counter-obligations at the time of the payments, which means that the operation is not a netting. In his opinion, this led to the fact that the assets were unfairly eliminated from the competitive mass. This falls under the grounds of a challenge under article 61.3 of the Bankruptcy Act.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, having examined the materials, considered the arguments of the CU justified for referring the dispute to its Economic Board. Thus, the highest court should assess whether such calculations under the contract can be qualified as acceptable balancing or whether they represent an unlawful preference of one creditor.
Photo: Freepik
04.02.2026
