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 MOMENT OF AWARENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AFFECTS THE PRESCRIPTION
The manager appealed to the court with demands to challenge the contracts of donation and sale of real estate (case no. A60-59006/22).
The courts of two instances satisfied the claims, proceeding from the fact that the debtor, realizing the fact that he could be held liable as a result of theft of the creditor's property, decided on the need to diversify risks, and therefore made the disputed transactions. In anticipation of the disputed transactions, the debtor committed acts to falsify the creditor's financial statements, which led to the revocation of the company's license to conduct banking operations by the regulator.
In addition, after examining the circumstances of the case, the courts found that the execution of gift and sale agreements was due to the current unfavorable financial situation in the credit institution where the debtor was the controlling person, the conclusion of these agreements provided the debtor with the opportunity to avoid negative consequences to withdraw his liquid property from creditors, while leaving him in the family and keeping control of it. As a result of the gratuitous transfer of real estate, the creditor's property interests were harmed, since he lost the opportunity to receive satisfaction at the expense of the alienated property.
The appeal changed the definition regarding restitution.
The cassation refused to satisfy the application, disagreeing with the conclusions of the courts that there were no grounds for applying the statute of limitations to the contested transactions.
The court verdict established that the debtor was brought to criminal responsibility. It follows from the text of the court's verdict that there were disputed agreements in the materials of the criminal case. In addition, the agency, being the bankruptcy trustee of the creditor, as the injured party, was familiarized with the materials of the criminal case in which the contested contracts are presented.
In such a situation, knowing about the existence of transactions made by the debtor in order to conceal property from foreclosure by the creditor, having the right to a substantive claim against him, the agency, as the bankruptcy trustee, could take measures to challenge the transactions in accordance with the established procedure. The initiation of bankruptcy proceedings and the introduction of a restructuring procedure for challenging transactions on civil grounds is not required.
The choice of a specific strategy by the civil law community of creditors to obtain satisfaction of their claims cannot affect the content of the counterparty's right to defend itself against its challenge by referring to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
The courts of two instances satisfied the claims, proceeding from the fact that the debtor, realizing the fact that he could be held liable as a result of theft of the creditor's property, decided on the need to diversify risks, and therefore made the disputed transactions. In anticipation of the disputed transactions, the debtor committed acts to falsify the creditor's financial statements, which led to the revocation of the company's license to conduct banking operations by the regulator.
In addition, after examining the circumstances of the case, the courts found that the execution of gift and sale agreements was due to the current unfavorable financial situation in the credit institution where the debtor was the controlling person, the conclusion of these agreements provided the debtor with the opportunity to avoid negative consequences to withdraw his liquid property from creditors, while leaving him in the family and keeping control of it. As a result of the gratuitous transfer of real estate, the creditor's property interests were harmed, since he lost the opportunity to receive satisfaction at the expense of the alienated property.
The appeal changed the definition regarding restitution.
The cassation refused to satisfy the application, disagreeing with the conclusions of the courts that there were no grounds for applying the statute of limitations to the contested transactions.
The court verdict established that the debtor was brought to criminal responsibility. It follows from the text of the court's verdict that there were disputed agreements in the materials of the criminal case. In addition, the agency, being the bankruptcy trustee of the creditor, as the injured party, was familiarized with the materials of the criminal case in which the contested contracts are presented.
In such a situation, knowing about the existence of transactions made by the debtor in order to conceal property from foreclosure by the creditor, having the right to a substantive claim against him, the agency, as the bankruptcy trustee, could take measures to challenge the transactions in accordance with the established procedure. The initiation of bankruptcy proceedings and the introduction of a restructuring procedure for challenging transactions on civil grounds is not required.
The choice of a specific strategy by the civil law community of creditors to obtain satisfaction of their claims cannot affect the content of the counterparty's right to defend itself against its challenge by referring to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
15.04.2025
