RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
08/09/2024
Sunday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
8 September 
1941 The blockade of Leningrad began.
1429 The storming of Paris by the troops of Jeanne D'Arc.
1380 The Tatar-Mongol troops were defeated by the Russian troops in the Battle of Kulikovo.
8 September
1941 The blockade of Leningrad began.
1429 The storming of Paris by the troops of Jeanne D'Arc.
1380 The Tatar-Mongol troops were defeated by the Russian troops in the Battle of Kulikovo.
THE MANAGER MUST PROVE THE MALFUNCTION OF THE FLASH DRIVE WITH THE DOCUMENTS
In the framework of the bankruptcy case (No. A56-108113/22), the manager filed an application for the recovery of documents from the former head of the debtor.
The courts of three instances satisfied the application, concluding that the defendant had not fulfilled the obligation to transfer the required documents and material assets to the bankruptcy trustee, which prevented the manager from fulfilling the duties assigned to him by the Bankruptcy Law.
The Supreme Court sent the dispute for reconsideration and noted that in the case in question, the defendant objected to the manager's claim and provided evidence that he expressed his willingness to transfer all the documentation he had, however, as a result of the manager's disagreement with the date and place of such transfer, he sent originals of primary documents and other documentation, including reflecting the interaction of the debtor with by contractors by mail with descriptions of attachments.
During the consideration of a separate dispute, the defendant also sent a flash drive with the 1C database to the manager by mail with an inventory of the attachment. The postal items sent by the defendant were received by the manager, which was not denied by him at the court session.
The manager, claiming a malfunction of the received flash drive, did not provide the court with documentary confirmation of this argument, as well as did not provide correspondence or other evidence of an attempt to interact with the former head on the issue of transferring documentation.
By accepting evidence and explanations only from the bankruptcy trustee and not checking the merits of the documented counter-arguments of the objecting person, the courts of the first and appellate instances actually created a situation in which the procedural capabilities of the parties were not equal, one of the parties was put in a preferential position, which violates the principles of competitiveness and equality of the parties in the arbitration process.
The courts of three instances satisfied the application, concluding that the defendant had not fulfilled the obligation to transfer the required documents and material assets to the bankruptcy trustee, which prevented the manager from fulfilling the duties assigned to him by the Bankruptcy Law.
The Supreme Court sent the dispute for reconsideration and noted that in the case in question, the defendant objected to the manager's claim and provided evidence that he expressed his willingness to transfer all the documentation he had, however, as a result of the manager's disagreement with the date and place of such transfer, he sent originals of primary documents and other documentation, including reflecting the interaction of the debtor with by contractors by mail with descriptions of attachments.
During the consideration of a separate dispute, the defendant also sent a flash drive with the 1C database to the manager by mail with an inventory of the attachment. The postal items sent by the defendant were received by the manager, which was not denied by him at the court session.
The manager, claiming a malfunction of the received flash drive, did not provide the court with documentary confirmation of this argument, as well as did not provide correspondence or other evidence of an attempt to interact with the former head on the issue of transferring documentation.
By accepting evidence and explanations only from the bankruptcy trustee and not checking the merits of the documented counter-arguments of the objecting person, the courts of the first and appellate instances actually created a situation in which the procedural capabilities of the parties were not equal, one of the parties was put in a preferential position, which violates the principles of competitiveness and equality of the parties in the arbitration process.
10.07.2024
