RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
Voidable Transaction and Term: Between the Manager's Duty and the Limits of Reason
The manager filed a claim with the court to invalidate the transaction for the transfer of funds (case No. A46-17354/22).
In denying the petition, the trial court concluded that there were no legal grounds for invalidating the disputed transfers and applying the consequences of their invalidity. It based its decision on the lack of evidence of disparity in the consideration, as well as the fact that the disputed payments resulted in a decrease in the value of the debtor's assets, and that the other party was aware of this purpose. The court noted that the financial manager had missed the one-year limitation period for challenging the debtor's transactions.
The appellate court concluded that there were grounds for invalidating the transfers, based on the fact that the disputed transfers, made in favor of a party interested in the debtor, in the absence of any consideration, resulted in a decrease in the debtor's assets, which could have been used to satisfy the creditors' claims.
Regarding the financial manager's failure to meet the statute of limitations for challenging the transaction, the appellate court stated that it was only on a certain date that the financial manager had an objective opportunity to learn about the completed transactions involving the transfer of funds from the debtor's accounts. It is from this date that the one-year period for challenging the transactions should be calculated, as the financial manager previously lacked complete information about the relationship between the parties.
The cassation court remanded the dispute for a new trial, noting that the appellate court's conclusions regarding the financial manager's filing an application challenging a suspicious transaction deemed invalid within the one-year statute of limitations were premature. It is necessary to determine why the financial manager filed an application challenging the transactions involving the transfer of funds so long after receiving information about the debtor's bank accounts.
The reasons for the financial manager's inaction regarding the application were not disclosed. The financial manager, acting in good faith, was obligated to immediately review the documents in the case file after its approval, request additional documents, analyze the debtor's account transactions, determine the existence of payments, and file a petition to invalidate the transaction within the prescribed timeframe or explain the reasons for not filing a petition with the court.
The appellate court's conclusion that the financial manager had an objective opportunity to learn about the completed fund transfer transactions from a certain date is also premature. The financial manager has not disclosed the reasons why the financial manager could not file this petition before the specified date. It must be established when the financial manager actually received the statements, what specific actions they took to obtain them, whether requests were sent to the bank, and the requests themselves must be examined with evidence of their submission.
It is necessary to evaluate the defendant's arguments that the financial manager was aware of the existence of two current accounts for at least a certain period of time, and that the financial manager filed a claim with the court for one of these accounts, challenging payments to other defendants. Establish the reasons why the financial manager did not file a claim within a year, evaluate their validity, and determine what specific actions the manager took to obtain statements.
It is necessary to determine which specific request was initially sent to the bank during a certain period of time, determine the reasons why a follow-up request was not sent to the bank for a long time, and why the bankruptcy trustee did not file a claim with the court for requisition. If it is established that the bank did not respond to the request, it is necessary to determine when the follow-up request was sent. Evaluate the arguments that the financial manager knew of the existence of one of the current accounts and even filed a claim with the court challenging transfers to the other defendant on that account, although he filed this claim significantly later.
It is necessary to determine when the financial manager actually received the statement, when they requested it, and how and when the financial manager learned of the disputed transfers in favor of the other defendant, reflected in the bank account, and indicated in the manager's application.
Photo: Freepik
In denying the petition, the trial court concluded that there were no legal grounds for invalidating the disputed transfers and applying the consequences of their invalidity. It based its decision on the lack of evidence of disparity in the consideration, as well as the fact that the disputed payments resulted in a decrease in the value of the debtor's assets, and that the other party was aware of this purpose. The court noted that the financial manager had missed the one-year limitation period for challenging the debtor's transactions.
The appellate court concluded that there were grounds for invalidating the transfers, based on the fact that the disputed transfers, made in favor of a party interested in the debtor, in the absence of any consideration, resulted in a decrease in the debtor's assets, which could have been used to satisfy the creditors' claims.
Regarding the financial manager's failure to meet the statute of limitations for challenging the transaction, the appellate court stated that it was only on a certain date that the financial manager had an objective opportunity to learn about the completed transactions involving the transfer of funds from the debtor's accounts. It is from this date that the one-year period for challenging the transactions should be calculated, as the financial manager previously lacked complete information about the relationship between the parties.
The cassation court remanded the dispute for a new trial, noting that the appellate court's conclusions regarding the financial manager's filing an application challenging a suspicious transaction deemed invalid within the one-year statute of limitations were premature. It is necessary to determine why the financial manager filed an application challenging the transactions involving the transfer of funds so long after receiving information about the debtor's bank accounts.
The reasons for the financial manager's inaction regarding the application were not disclosed. The financial manager, acting in good faith, was obligated to immediately review the documents in the case file after its approval, request additional documents, analyze the debtor's account transactions, determine the existence of payments, and file a petition to invalidate the transaction within the prescribed timeframe or explain the reasons for not filing a petition with the court.
The appellate court's conclusion that the financial manager had an objective opportunity to learn about the completed fund transfer transactions from a certain date is also premature. The financial manager has not disclosed the reasons why the financial manager could not file this petition before the specified date. It must be established when the financial manager actually received the statements, what specific actions they took to obtain them, whether requests were sent to the bank, and the requests themselves must be examined with evidence of their submission.
It is necessary to evaluate the defendant's arguments that the financial manager was aware of the existence of two current accounts for at least a certain period of time, and that the financial manager filed a claim with the court for one of these accounts, challenging payments to other defendants. Establish the reasons why the financial manager did not file a claim within a year, evaluate their validity, and determine what specific actions the manager took to obtain statements.
It is necessary to determine which specific request was initially sent to the bank during a certain period of time, determine the reasons why a follow-up request was not sent to the bank for a long time, and why the bankruptcy trustee did not file a claim with the court for requisition. If it is established that the bank did not respond to the request, it is necessary to determine when the follow-up request was sent. Evaluate the arguments that the financial manager knew of the existence of one of the current accounts and even filed a claim with the court challenging transfers to the other defendant on that account, although he filed this claim significantly later.
It is necessary to determine when the financial manager actually received the statement, when they requested it, and how and when the financial manager learned of the disputed transfers in favor of the other defendant, reflected in the bank account, and indicated in the manager's application.
Photo: Freepik
14.11.2025
