THE SUPREME COURT WILL PUT AN END TO THE DISPUTE ABOUT MISSING DEADLINES FOR DEBT COLLECTION

The recoverer according to the writ of execution could not receive the claimed property in connection with the liquidation of the debtor. Six years later, a property distribution procedure was initiated against the debtor, while the claimant was not admitted to it. The Supreme Court will sort out the case.

In 2015, the Matador company filed a lawsuit against the Sports Management Agency for 25.3 million rubles. The claim was granted by the court in full. In the future, a settlement agreement was concluded, according to which the debtor undertook to transfer part of the property to the successor of the claimant, Marina Telyatnikova, but she was not destined to receive the property due. In 2018, the debtor was liquidated and excluded from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities as an inactive legal entity, and the property remained on its balance sheet, which the debtor undertook to transfer in accordance with the settlement agreement.

A few years later, in 2022, at the request of one of the debtor's participants, the procedure for distributing the property of the liquidated legal entity was initiated in the framework of case No. A65-6241/2022. The claimant tried to get involved in this procedure, but the court of first instance denied her the transfer of the property due due to the fact that she missed the deadline for the presentation of the writ of execution. The appellate instance overturned the judicial act of a lower instance, referring to the fact that in relation to the distribution of the property of a liquidated legal entity, it is necessary to calculate a five-year period from the date of liquidation of the company (according to the rules of Article 64 of the Civil Code, namely paragraph 5.2). Accordingly, the claimant did not miss this deadline. The cassation instance, in turn, also canceled the judicial act of appeal, based on the fact that Telyatnikova could not have been aware of the fate of the "Sports Management Agency" for six years from the moment of initiation of enforcement proceedings.

Then the case went to the Supreme Court on the complaint of the claimant. In it, she noted that she had no reason to initiate enforcement proceedings in the conditions of liquidation of the debtor. Telyatnikova also stated that the debtor's participant, who did not allow her to participate in the distribution of property, was put in a priority position.

The Supreme Court will consider this complaint in November.