RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
16/05/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
16 May 
1970 The Russian poet Joseph Brodsky was ordered to leave the USSR.
1970 The Russian poet Joseph Brodsky was ordered to leave the USSR.
1970 The decision was made to begin the “cultural revolution” in China.
1970 The decision was made to begin the “cultural revolution” in China.
1970 The first film awards, which were later called the Oscars, were issued in Hollywood.
1970 The first film awards, which were later called the Oscars, were issued in Hollywood.
16 May
1970 The Russian poet Joseph Brodsky was ordered to leave the USSR.
1970 The Russian poet Joseph Brodsky was ordered to leave the USSR.
1970 The decision was made to begin the “cultural revolution” in China.
1970 The decision was made to begin the “cultural revolution” in China.
1970 The first film awards, which were later called the Oscars, were issued in Hollywood.
1970 The first film awards, which were later called the Oscars, were issued in Hollywood.
THE MANAGER HAS THE RIGHT TO REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES IN A DISPUTE OVER THE ILLEGALITY OF HIS ACTIONS
The debtor's former supervisor appealed to the court against the actions (inaction) of the arbitration administrator (case no. A53-23106/21).
After the complaint was refused, the administrator appealed to the court to recover court costs and compensation for moral damage from the applicant.
In rejecting the application, the courts of the two instances proceeded from the lack of grounds for reimbursement of the representative's services, since it follows from the case file that the representative sends documents on behalf of the arbitration administrator for other disputes, including all separate disputes within the framework of the present insolvency case. The stated circumstances indicate that the representative provides the relevant services on an ongoing basis.
The courts also found it unproven that moral harm had been inflicted on the arbitration administrator, since filing a complaint against the actions (inaction) of the arbitration administrators is a common practice when considering insolvency cases.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in terms of court costs, since, as follows from the content of the contract, the parties agreed to provide legal services specifically for the purpose of protecting the interests of the arbitrator in a separate dispute over the creditor's complaint against the actions (inaction) of the arbitrator in the debtor's bankruptcy case. Similar clarifications are contained in the act of acceptance of services.
The courts did not fully examine the evidence presented, which led to the adoption of an incorrect and unjustified judicial act. The courts did not consider the question of the reasonableness of the court costs presented for recovery.
After the complaint was refused, the administrator appealed to the court to recover court costs and compensation for moral damage from the applicant.
In rejecting the application, the courts of the two instances proceeded from the lack of grounds for reimbursement of the representative's services, since it follows from the case file that the representative sends documents on behalf of the arbitration administrator for other disputes, including all separate disputes within the framework of the present insolvency case. The stated circumstances indicate that the representative provides the relevant services on an ongoing basis.
The courts also found it unproven that moral harm had been inflicted on the arbitration administrator, since filing a complaint against the actions (inaction) of the arbitration administrators is a common practice when considering insolvency cases.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in terms of court costs, since, as follows from the content of the contract, the parties agreed to provide legal services specifically for the purpose of protecting the interests of the arbitrator in a separate dispute over the creditor's complaint against the actions (inaction) of the arbitrator in the debtor's bankruptcy case. Similar clarifications are contained in the act of acceptance of services.
The courts did not fully examine the evidence presented, which led to the adoption of an incorrect and unjustified judicial act. The courts did not consider the question of the reasonableness of the court costs presented for recovery.
14.04.2025
