RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
28/12/2024
Saturday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
28 December 
1970 the Novosibirsk Metro was commissioned.
1970 A public screening of the Lumiere Brothers Cinematography took place, the birth of cinema.
1970 The first chewing gum was patented in Ohio.
28 December
1970 the Novosibirsk Metro was commissioned.
1970 A public screening of the Lumiere Brothers Cinematography took place, the birth of cinema.
1970 The first chewing gum was patented in Ohio.
TRADING REPORTS MUST BE RELIABLE
In the framework of the bankruptcy case (No. A41-67999/19), a potential bidder applied to the court to challenge the auction for the sale of the debtor's property.
The courts of three instances refused to satisfy the application, noting that the applicant did not participate in the auction, respectively, he has no interest in challenging them.
In addition, the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's arguments that the messages on the auction contained false information about the subject of the auction, referring to the fact that the applicant had the opportunity to personally familiarize himself with the information on the auction, and therefore all interested persons had the right to familiarize themselves with the information on the subject of the auction, receive a copy of the expert opinion and personally inspect the subject of the auction. The legislation does not contain requirements for a detailed description of each object put up for auction, and also does not indicate the necessary degree of detail of property data.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation referred the complaints of the applicant and another potential participant to the board for consideration and noted the following arguments:
"The applicants believe that each auction message was unreliable in terms of the deadline for accepting applications, the date of the auction, the determination of the composition and the initial price and was changed by a subsequent message; the texts of the auction messages were compiled in such a way that they intentionally misled potential buyers, which eventually led to a decrease in competition and the victory of the desired participant.
In particular, the applicants note that the defendants did not explain to the court why the production premises with an area of 11,391 square meters and specific equipment had to be disguised under such an unreliable name as "Building materials".
According to the applicant, the name of lot No. 1 "Building materials", which does not correspond to the Internet search bar about the real object of sale, as well as other false information in the auction messages and the restrictions imposed, cut off potential buyers so that lot No. 1 could be purchased by the right participant at the lowest price.
In turn, another applicant of the complaint notes that the sale of the debtor's billion-dollar property for 91 million rubles led to the inability to satisfy creditors' claims due to insufficient funds received into the bankruptcy estate.
The courts of three instances refused to satisfy the application, noting that the applicant did not participate in the auction, respectively, he has no interest in challenging them.
In addition, the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's arguments that the messages on the auction contained false information about the subject of the auction, referring to the fact that the applicant had the opportunity to personally familiarize himself with the information on the auction, and therefore all interested persons had the right to familiarize themselves with the information on the subject of the auction, receive a copy of the expert opinion and personally inspect the subject of the auction. The legislation does not contain requirements for a detailed description of each object put up for auction, and also does not indicate the necessary degree of detail of property data.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation referred the complaints of the applicant and another potential participant to the board for consideration and noted the following arguments:
"The applicants believe that each auction message was unreliable in terms of the deadline for accepting applications, the date of the auction, the determination of the composition and the initial price and was changed by a subsequent message; the texts of the auction messages were compiled in such a way that they intentionally misled potential buyers, which eventually led to a decrease in competition and the victory of the desired participant.
In particular, the applicants note that the defendants did not explain to the court why the production premises with an area of 11,391 square meters and specific equipment had to be disguised under such an unreliable name as "Building materials".
According to the applicant, the name of lot No. 1 "Building materials", which does not correspond to the Internet search bar about the real object of sale, as well as other false information in the auction messages and the restrictions imposed, cut off potential buyers so that lot No. 1 could be purchased by the right participant at the lowest price.
In turn, another applicant of the complaint notes that the sale of the debtor's billion-dollar property for 91 million rubles led to the inability to satisfy creditors' claims due to insufficient funds received into the bankruptcy estate.
12.01.2024
