RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
29/12/2024
Sunday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
29 December 
1970 The 36-year civil war in Guatemala ended in reconciliation between the parties.
1970 Catherine II introduced paper money.
1970 Catherine II introduced paper money.
1970 The Russian Empire was divided into eight provinces by the decree of Peter I.
29 December
1970 The 36-year civil war in Guatemala ended in reconciliation between the parties.
1970 Catherine II introduced paper money.
1970 Catherine II introduced paper money.
1970 The Russian Empire was divided into eight provinces by the decree of Peter I.
THE PURPOSE OF THE AUCTION IS TO GET MAXIMUM REVENUE
The manager filed an application to the court for approval of the Regulations on the sale of the debtor's property.
The position of the first instance and the appeal
By the ruling of the court of first instance, the Regulation was approved in the wording proposed by the manager. The initial sale price of the debtor's property has been set: shares in ownership of a 900 sq. m land plot; 50% share in the authorized capital of LLC RVSN in the amount of 6,500 rubles; 51% share in the authorized capital of LLC KSD in the amount of 5,100 rubles; 100% share in the authorized capital of LLC Group of CompaniesKSD"" in the amount of 10 thousand rubles.
The court of appeal proceeded to consider the dispute according to the rules established for the consideration of the case in the arbitration court of the first instance.
By its decision, the appeal overturned the ruling of the first instance. The Regulation was approved in the wording proposed by the financial manager.
Approving the Provision in the wording proposed by the financial manager, the court of appeal proceeded from the absence of motivated and documented objections to the market value of the debtor's property on the part of the persons involved in the case, while noting that the procedure proposed by the financial manager for the sale of the debtor's property corresponds to the objectives of the property sale procedure aimed at the realization of the bankruptcy estate and subsequent satisfaction of claims creditors. There are no motivated disagreements on the procedure for the sale of the debtor's property proposed by the financial manager on the part of the debtor and creditors.
Rejecting the debtor's argument with reference to the fact that the Provision unreasonably includes property under arrest in the framework of a criminal case, the court of appeal noted that this circumstance in itself does not prevent the approval of the Provision on the sale of such property of the debtor.
ict Court
The cassation overturned the decision of the appeal, sending the dispute to a new appeal (Decision of the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus District dated January 22, 2024 in case No. A53-16953/19). In arguing its position, the court cited the following arguments:
• The court of Appeal did not take into account that the presence of property in the company in which the share was offered for sale at auction affects the market value of the share in the authorized capital and avoided investigating whether the market value of the share, taking into account the assets of the named company, corresponds to the initial price of the share established in the contested provision.
• In this regard, the conclusion of the court of Appeal on the absence of obstacles to the approval of a new provision in the event of the discovery of other property of the debtor cannot be recognized as legitimate, taking into account that the disputed property belonging to the company (vehicle and land plots) cannot be included in the bankruptcy estate of the debtor and sold, since it does not belong to him on the right property and is not its asset forming the bankruptcy estate, but can only be taken into account when determining the actual value of the debtor's share in the named company, which, as can be seen from the creditor's objections, was not taken into account when determining the initial price of the disputed share.
Photo: Freepik
The position of the first instance and the appeal
By the ruling of the court of first instance, the Regulation was approved in the wording proposed by the manager. The initial sale price of the debtor's property has been set: shares in ownership of a 900 sq. m land plot; 50% share in the authorized capital of LLC RVSN in the amount of 6,500 rubles; 51% share in the authorized capital of LLC KSD in the amount of 5,100 rubles; 100% share in the authorized capital of LLC Group of CompaniesKSD"" in the amount of 10 thousand rubles.The court of appeal proceeded to consider the dispute according to the rules established for the consideration of the case in the arbitration court of the first instance.
By its decision, the appeal overturned the ruling of the first instance. The Regulation was approved in the wording proposed by the financial manager.
Approving the Provision in the wording proposed by the financial manager, the court of appeal proceeded from the absence of motivated and documented objections to the market value of the debtor's property on the part of the persons involved in the case, while noting that the procedure proposed by the financial manager for the sale of the debtor's property corresponds to the objectives of the property sale procedure aimed at the realization of the bankruptcy estate and subsequent satisfaction of claims creditors. There are no motivated disagreements on the procedure for the sale of the debtor's property proposed by the financial manager on the part of the debtor and creditors.
Rejecting the debtor's argument with reference to the fact that the Provision unreasonably includes property under arrest in the framework of a criminal case, the court of appeal noted that this circumstance in itself does not prevent the approval of the Provision on the sale of such property of the
debtor.
The position of the Distr
ict CourtThe cassation overturned the decision of the appeal, sending the dispute to a new appeal (Decision of the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus District dated January 22, 2024 in case No. A53-16953/19). In arguing its position, the court cited the following arguments:
• The court of Appeal did not take into account that the presence of property in the company in which the share was offered for sale at auction affects the market value of the share in the authorized capital and avoided investigating whether the market value of the share, taking into account the assets of the named company, corresponds to the initial price of the share established in the contested provision.
• In this regard, the conclusion of the court of Appeal on the absence of obstacles to the approval of a new provision in the event of the discovery of other property of the debtor cannot be recognized as legitimate, taking into account that the disputed property belonging to the company (vehicle and land plots) cannot be included in the bankruptcy estate of the debtor and sold, since it does not belong to him on the right property and is not its asset forming the bankruptcy estate, but can only be taken into account when determining the actual value of the debtor's share in the named company, which, as can be seen from the creditor's objections, was not taken into account when determining the initial price of the disputed share.
Photo: Freepik
25.01.2024
