RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
17/04/2025
Thursday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
17 April 
1970 Queen Elizabeth II of England declared the independence of Canada|
17 April
1970 Queen Elizabeth II of England declared the independence of Canada|
TRUST COLLECTS 439 MILLION FROM EX-HEAD OF CHELYABINSK ROSPECHAT
Trust Bank filed a lawsuit with the Court of Appeal (the Eighteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal) to recover 439.5 million rubles in damages from the former head of Rospechat. This lawsuit was the result of the fact that, according to the bank, Konstantin Fedorinin was inactive in collecting accounts receivable.
The amount of the debt was confirmed by the decision of the arbitration court and the writ of execution issued by the arbitration. However, despite this, procedural violations were committed when filing an appeal. This caused the claim to be abandoned. To give the case a go, the initiator of the dispute should eliminate them by February 21, 2025.
The Trust filed claims against Fedorinin's actions. According to the bank's statement, the former head of Rospechat did not take the necessary measures to collect debts from several companies. The amount of the missed debt turned out to be significant.
According to the bankruptcy trustee, this was the reason for the cancellation of debts, as the statute of limitations had expired. But timing is not the only reason for losses. Part of the debt turned out to be related to the actions of affiliated structures that complicated the repayment of funds.
The ex-head is in no hurry to agree with the arguments of the Trust. He claims that the debt was formed within the framework of intra-group obligations. They could not be recovered through the courts, as they did not aim to worsen the economic condition of the business.
Fedorinin points out that during the period when he led the organization, the state of affairs in the company was stable. Financial problems began to arise only in 2017. It was impractical to collect debts. To do this, the business would have to incur large costs that do not guarantee any success.
Interestingly, Fedorinin's arguments corresponded to the practice of judicial proceedings until 2020. Arbitration authorities very rarely went to the trouble of including in the register claims for obligations within the group. This made the process of collecting funds more difficult. Transactions concluded by such structures could be considered unfair. Especially when their signing was aimed at withdrawing assets.
But five years ago, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation published a review of the court's practice. And the approaches to solving the issue have changed. The claims of affiliated structures should have been subordinated. This means lowering their priority in the debt collection process. The actions of the directors, who ignored the collection of such debt, were considered by the courts as an abuse of law.
Rospechat was declared insolvent in the spring of 2020. Prior to that, the organization had been under surveillance since October 2019. The assets at the company's disposal were sold at auction. For example, last year the Stroymag company bought the building of the enterprise for 158.5 million.
The first instance considered Rospechat's interaction with affiliated structures (for example, Aria-AiF) to be exclusively intra-group. The money transfers were not linked to independent lenders. Their funds were also not spent. As a result, the court of first instance rejected the "Trust" claim against the former director.
The amount of the debt was confirmed by the decision of the arbitration court and the writ of execution issued by the arbitration. However, despite this, procedural violations were committed when filing an appeal. This caused the claim to be abandoned. To give the case a go, the initiator of the dispute should eliminate them by February 21, 2025.
The Trust filed claims against Fedorinin's actions. According to the bank's statement, the former head of Rospechat did not take the necessary measures to collect debts from several companies. The amount of the missed debt turned out to be significant.
According to the bankruptcy trustee, this was the reason for the cancellation of debts, as the statute of limitations had expired. But timing is not the only reason for losses. Part of the debt turned out to be related to the actions of affiliated structures that complicated the repayment of funds.
The ex-head is in no hurry to agree with the arguments of the Trust. He claims that the debt was formed within the framework of intra-group obligations. They could not be recovered through the courts, as they did not aim to worsen the economic condition of the business.
Fedorinin points out that during the period when he led the organization, the state of affairs in the company was stable. Financial problems began to arise only in 2017. It was impractical to collect debts. To do this, the business would have to incur large costs that do not guarantee any success.
Interestingly, Fedorinin's arguments corresponded to the practice of judicial proceedings until 2020. Arbitration authorities very rarely went to the trouble of including in the register claims for obligations within the group. This made the process of collecting funds more difficult. Transactions concluded by such structures could be considered unfair. Especially when their signing was aimed at withdrawing assets.
But five years ago, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation published a review of the court's practice. And the approaches to solving the issue have changed. The claims of affiliated structures should have been subordinated. This means lowering their priority in the debt collection process. The actions of the directors, who ignored the collection of such debt, were considered by the courts as an abuse of law.
Rospechat was declared insolvent in the spring of 2020. Prior to that, the organization had been under surveillance since October 2019. The assets at the company's disposal were sold at auction. For example, last year the Stroymag company bought the building of the enterprise for 158.5 million.
The first instance considered Rospechat's interaction with affiliated structures (for example, Aria-AiF) to be exclusively intra-group. The money transfers were not linked to independent lenders. Their funds were also not spent. As a result, the court of first instance rejected the "Trust" claim against the former director.
30.01.2025
