RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
The validity of the disposal of the company's funds is in doubt
The manager appealed to the court with a demand to recover losses and interest from the former head of the debtor for using other people's funds (case no. A41-17259/23).
In refusing to satisfy the stated claims, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the administrator's claim for damages was essentially aimed at challenging the debtor's transactions, which were carried out in accordance with the relevant articles of the bankruptcy law.
The appeal satisfied the application. The Court of Appeal found that money withdrawal operations were carried out during the relevant period. When applying to the court for damages, the manager pointed out that during the analysis of information on the cash flow on the company's settlement accounts, operations were revealed to withdraw funds in favor of the former CEO, in the absence of exculpatory documents, without providing any counter-provision from the counterparties, for purposes obviously unrelated with the debtor's business activities.
At the same time, the bank statements do not contain any operations for the return of the transferred funds. Thus, the defendant committed actions to unreasonably withdraw funds belonging to the company without providing relevant documentation, which led the court of appeal to conclude that losses had been inflicted on the debtor.
In sending the dispute for reconsideration, the cassation drew attention to the fact that the defendant submitted written evidence to the case file in support of his arguments about spending money on the debtor's needs. Thus, in order to properly consider the dispute on its merits, the court should have checked such written evidence, and as a result of such verification, it should have established whether the funds were spent on the debtor's needs or not, based on which the dispute should be resolved in one way or another.
In this case, the court of first instance did not consider the merits of the claim, while the court of appeal, resolving the dispute on the merits, did not examine all the evidence presented in the case file, and therefore did not establish the factual circumstances of the case, the establishment of which is mandatory.
Photo: Freepik
In refusing to satisfy the stated claims, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the administrator's claim for damages was essentially aimed at challenging the debtor's transactions, which were carried out in accordance with the relevant articles of the bankruptcy law.
The appeal satisfied the application. The Court of Appeal found that money withdrawal operations were carried out during the relevant period. When applying to the court for damages, the manager pointed out that during the analysis of information on the cash flow on the company's settlement accounts, operations were revealed to withdraw funds in favor of the former CEO, in the absence of exculpatory documents, without providing any counter-provision from the counterparties, for purposes obviously unrelated with the debtor's business activities.
At the same time, the bank statements do not contain any operations for the return of the transferred funds. Thus, the defendant committed actions to unreasonably withdraw funds belonging to the company without providing relevant documentation, which led the court of appeal to conclude that losses had been inflicted on the debtor.
In sending the dispute for reconsideration, the cassation drew attention to the fact that the defendant submitted written evidence to the case file in support of his arguments about spending money on the debtor's needs. Thus, in order to properly consider the dispute on its merits, the court should have checked such written evidence, and as a result of such verification, it should have established whether the funds were spent on the debtor's needs or not, based on which the dispute should be resolved in one way or another.
In this case, the court of first instance did not consider the merits of the claim, while the court of appeal, resolving the dispute on the merits, did not examine all the evidence presented in the case file, and therefore did not establish the factual circumstances of the case, the establishment of which is mandatory.
Photo: Freepik
21.08.2025
