RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
20/05/2026
Wednesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
20 May 
1970 Vladimir Zelensky became the president of Ukraine.
1970 The proclamation of the Republic of Cuba, the evacuation of the American troops.
1970 Vasco da Gama became the first European to arrive in India, sailing around Africa.
20 May
1970 Vladimir Zelensky became the president of Ukraine.
1970 The proclamation of the Republic of Cuba, the evacuation of the American troops.
1970 Vasco da Gama became the first European to arrive in India, sailing around Africa.
THE SUPREME COURT WILL EVALUATE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH DID NOT SUIT THE CREDITORS
The Economic Board (SCES of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation) has taken up the consideration of a high-profile dispute over the Udarnik poultry farm. The main issue to be resolved by the highest court is whether it is legitimate to approve a settlement agreement in an insolvency case if even some creditors oppose it. The lower courts had previously given the go-ahead to a restructuring plan with payments stretching over 14 years.
The Udarnik insolvency case has been dragging on since 2019. The initiator was the Ecotrans company. The review started in the arbitration of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region. Only five years later, in 2024, the parties were able to submit to the court the text of the settlement agreement, the key condition of which was a long-term installment payment on debts.
A sharp rejection of this scheme was expressed by the bank and a group of collateral creditors. They filed a complaint, insisting on strict compliance with paragraph 2 of Article 150 of the relevant law. According to their logic, the document is valid only with the unanimous support of all creditors, whose claims are secured by the pledge of the debtor's assets. The applicants also doubt the economic realism of the plan. The calculations, according to their data, do not prove that the factory will be able to operate profitably.
Despite the protests, the first instance, the appeal and the cassation sided with the debtor. The judges considered the arguments of the opponents economically unfounded, and the rejection of the deal was a step that paralyzes the work of the enterprise and hinders its further activities.
The authors of the complaint point out to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation the risks associated with mortgaged land plots. The price of assets critically depends on the transfer of land to another category. Since March 1, 2024, the rules of this procedure have been tightened. This, according to creditors, reduces the likelihood of fulfilling the terms of the agreement.
In their complaint, the creditors appeal to the principle of rehabilitation parity, which, in their opinion, has been violated. The proposed conditions put them in a worse position than in the case of liquidation.
There are also complaints about the counting of votes. For example, the interests of the Gatchina Feed Mill associated with the debtor were taken into account in the judicial acts. However, the judges ignored the additional votes of the bank on promissory notes for 645 million. The fact that these securities belong to the bank was previously confirmed by the definition of the SCES of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (September 2024).
Creditors also pay attention to the total duration of the epic: 6 years in the supervision procedure and 14 years of interest-free installments. Such timing, in their opinion, destroys the balance of interests of the parties and unreasonably delays the final calculations. The Supreme Court will have to check whether the settlement agreement, which actually ignored the opinion of the collateral creditors, is legitimate.
Photo: Freepik
The Udarnik insolvency case has been dragging on since 2019. The initiator was the Ecotrans company. The review started in the arbitration of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region. Only five years later, in 2024, the parties were able to submit to the court the text of the settlement agreement, the key condition of which was a long-term installment payment on debts.
A sharp rejection of this scheme was expressed by the bank and a group of collateral creditors. They filed a complaint, insisting on strict compliance with paragraph 2 of Article 150 of the relevant law. According to their logic, the document is valid only with the unanimous support of all creditors, whose claims are secured by the pledge of the debtor's assets. The applicants also doubt the economic realism of the plan. The calculations, according to their data, do not prove that the factory will be able to operate profitably.
Despite the protests, the first instance, the appeal and the cassation sided with the debtor. The judges considered the arguments of the opponents economically unfounded, and the rejection of the deal was a step that paralyzes the work of the enterprise and hinders its further activities.
The authors of the complaint point out to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation the risks associated with mortgaged land plots. The price of assets critically depends on the transfer of land to another category. Since March 1, 2024, the rules of this procedure have been tightened. This, according to creditors, reduces the likelihood of fulfilling the terms of the agreement.
In their complaint, the creditors appeal to the principle of rehabilitation parity, which, in their opinion, has been violated. The proposed conditions put them in a worse position than in the case of liquidation.
There are also complaints about the counting of votes. For example, the interests of the Gatchina Feed Mill associated with the debtor were taken into account in the judicial acts. However, the judges ignored the additional votes of the bank on promissory notes for 645 million. The fact that these securities belong to the bank was previously confirmed by the definition of the SCES of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (September 2024).
Creditors also pay attention to the total duration of the epic: 6 years in the supervision procedure and 14 years of interest-free installments. Such timing, in their opinion, destroys the balance of interests of the parties and unreasonably delays the final calculations. The Supreme Court will have to check whether the settlement agreement, which actually ignored the opinion of the collateral creditors, is legitimate.
Photo: Freepik
12.05.2026
