RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
11/05/2024
Saturday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
11 May 
2004 The longest reality show of the Russian television "Dom-2" started.
2004 The longest reality show of the Russian television "Dom-2" started
1949 The Kingdom of Siam was renamed Thailand.
1949 The Kingdom of Siam was renamed Thailand.
1931 The bankruptcy of the Austrian bank “Credit-Anstalt” began a financial crisis in Central Europe.
1931 The bankruptcy of the Austrian bank “Credit-Anstalt” began a financial crisis in Central Europe.
11 May
2004 The longest reality show of the Russian television "Dom-2" started.
2004 The longest reality show of the Russian television "Dom-2" started
1949 The Kingdom of Siam was renamed Thailand.
1949 The Kingdom of Siam was renamed Thailand.
1931 The bankruptcy of the Austrian bank “Credit-Anstalt” began a financial crisis in Central Europe.
1931 The bankruptcy of the Austrian bank “Credit-Anstalt” began a financial crisis in Central Europe.
THE MANAGER HAS THE RIGHT TO REFER TO THE OMISSION OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD IN THE COMPLAINT
The manager appealed against the judicial act of the first instance. In the complaint, he stated that the plaintiff had missed the statute of limitations. The court of appeal did not consider the statement and arguments of the manager.
The position of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court annulled the judicial acts of lower instances, sending the dispute for a new review by the appellate instance (Ruling No. 5-KG23-117-K2 dated 10/31/2023).
Forming its position, the court presented the following arguments:
• After the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor, he is given the special status of a bankrupt debtor. The bankruptcy estate is formed from his property.
• These provisions ensure the safety of the debtor's property and exclude the priority satisfaction of creditors' claims for the debtor's obligations at the expense of his property outside bankruptcy.
• In the event that a creditor makes a claim based on a judicial act in a dispute in which neither the manager nor other creditors of the debtor could participate, then the exercise of their right to protect their interests can only take place within the framework of appeal proceedings through an appeal against a judicial act.
• Otherwise, it would infringe on the right of creditors who promptly applied for judicial protection in the framework of a bankruptcy case to proportionally satisfy their claims at the expense of the debtor's bankruptcy estate and to judicial protection against the claims of other creditors based on an earlier decision of a court of general jurisdiction.
The position of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court annulled the judicial acts of lower instances, sending the dispute for a new review by the appellate instance (Ruling No. 5-KG23-117-K2 dated 10/31/2023).Forming its position, the court presented the following arguments:
• After the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor, he is given the special status of a bankrupt debtor. The bankruptcy estate is formed from his property.
• These provisions ensure the safety of the debtor's property and exclude the priority satisfaction of creditors' claims for the debtor's obligations at the expense of his property outside bankruptcy.
• In the event that a creditor makes a claim based on a judicial act in a dispute in which neither the manager nor other creditors of the debtor could participate, then the exercise of their right to protect their interests can only take place within the framework of appeal proceedings through an appeal against a judicial act.
• Otherwise, it would infringe on the right of creditors who promptly applied for judicial protection in the framework of a bankruptcy case to proportionally satisfy their claims at the expense of the debtor's bankruptcy estate and to judicial protection against the claims of other creditors based on an earlier decision of a court of general jurisdiction.
14.12.2023
