RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
19/09/2024
Thursday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
19 September 
1970 Scott Fahlman proposed using emoticons as a way to express emotions on the Internet.
1970 The Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR banned the export of art and historical monuments abroad.
1970 The first beauty contest was held in Belgium.
19 September
1970 Scott Fahlman proposed using emoticons as a way to express emotions on the Internet.
1970 The Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR banned the export of art and historical monuments abroad.
1970 The first beauty contest was held in Belgium.
The loss of the possibility of collecting accounts receivable due to the fault of the manager entails losses
The debtor's manager appealed to the court with an application for recognition of the illegal inaction of the former manager and recovery of losses (case No. A24-4999/16).
Partially satisfying the requirements, the courts of two instances concluded that the defendant improperly fulfilled his obligations to recover the debtor's receivables.
The courts stated that the applicant did not prove the fact of the unconditional loss of the possibility of collecting receivables into the bankruptcy estate of the debtor and, accordingly, the fact of causing losses to the debtor in the specified amount as a result of the defendant's unlawful inaction.
Similarly, the courts considered the applicant's claim to declare illegal the defendant's inaction during the period of performance of the duties of the bankruptcy trustee, expressed in the omission of the statute of limitations on bringing the controlling debtor to subsidiary liability, to be unfounded and not subject to satisfaction.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new consideration, pointing out that, contrary to the circumstances, of which it was obvious that the court approved by the bankruptcy trustee of the applicant's debtor the general three-year limitation period for applying to the court for the recovery of receivables, the courts, when resolving a separate dispute, unreasonably took a completely opposite position (contrary to the circumstances of the present case and the statutory by a judicial act that has entered into force) – on the applicant's failure to prove the impossibility of collecting receivables into the bankruptcy estate of the debtor.
In connection with the above, the conclusions of the courts on the absence of grounds for recovery of losses from the defendant in relation to the debtor's unclaimed receivables cannot be recognized as sufficiently justified and motivated.
Similarly, the judicial board of the court of cassation instance cannot agree with the conclusions of the courts, which were ruled in support of the refusal to satisfy the applicant's claim related to the defendant's inaction, expressed in the omission of the limitation period for bringing the controlling debtor to subsidiary liability, including due to their contradiction to the circumstances and conclusions set out in the effective force definitions.
Partially satisfying the requirements, the courts of two instances concluded that the defendant improperly fulfilled his obligations to recover the debtor's receivables.
The courts stated that the applicant did not prove the fact of the unconditional loss of the possibility of collecting receivables into the bankruptcy estate of the debtor and, accordingly, the fact of causing losses to the debtor in the specified amount as a result of the defendant's unlawful inaction.
Similarly, the courts considered the applicant's claim to declare illegal the defendant's inaction during the period of performance of the duties of the bankruptcy trustee, expressed in the omission of the statute of limitations on bringing the controlling debtor to subsidiary liability, to be unfounded and not subject to satisfaction.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new consideration, pointing out that, contrary to the circumstances, of which it was obvious that the court approved by the bankruptcy trustee of the applicant's debtor the general three-year limitation period for applying to the court for the recovery of receivables, the courts, when resolving a separate dispute, unreasonably took a completely opposite position (contrary to the circumstances of the present case and the statutory by a judicial act that has entered into force) – on the applicant's failure to prove the impossibility of collecting receivables into the bankruptcy estate of the debtor.
In connection with the above, the conclusions of the courts on the absence of grounds for recovery of losses from the defendant in relation to the debtor's unclaimed receivables cannot be recognized as sufficiently justified and motivated.
Similarly, the judicial board of the court of cassation instance cannot agree with the conclusions of the courts, which were ruled in support of the refusal to satisfy the applicant's claim related to the defendant's inaction, expressed in the omission of the limitation period for bringing the controlling debtor to subsidiary liability, including due to their contradiction to the circumstances and conclusions set out in the effective force definitions.
12.09.2024
