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.
When the justification for a debt changes during the course of the process
The creditor filed a claim with the court to include the claims in the debtor’s register (case No. A41-62218/23).
The trial court dismissed the creditor's claim because the company's purchase and sales ledger does not qualify as primary documentation confirming the delivery of goods, and the creditor failed to provide any other primary documentation.
The appellate court upheld the claim and found that an exchange of goods had taken place between the creditor and the debtor. Furthermore, the appellate court took into account that the disputed payments had already been the subject of a court investigation in the bankruptcy case of the creditor company, in a dispute over their invalidation. It was determined that the sales transactions to the debtor were invalidated, and the consequences of the invalidity of the transactions were applied, in the form of a collection of funds from the debtor into the bankruptcy estate.
Furthermore, the appellate panel took into account that a motion to postpone the hearing had been filed prior to the start of the court hearing due to the need to provide additional evidence. Thus, the appellate court proceeded from the premise that, in the presence of a final judicial decision confirming the composition and amount of a creditor's claim, the arbitration court determines whether it can be filed during insolvency proceedings and the order of satisfaction without reconsidering the merits of the dispute.
The cassation court remanded the dispute for a new hearing, stating that the validity and amount of creditors' claims are verified regardless of any disagreements regarding these claims between the debtor and persons entitled to raise relevant objections.
In fact, due to the absence of the publication of the operative part of the court's ruling, the creditor was unaware of the hearing of the merits of the dispute. Amendments to the application for inclusion of claims were received by the trial court after the merits of the dispute had been heard.
The appellate court effectively relied on the attached ruling invalidating the transaction and applying the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction. However, the appellate court failed to take into account that the rules on the consolidation and severance of multiple claims are not applied in the appellate arbitration court. Prior to the trial court's decision, the creditor did not file a motion to amend the subject matter or basis of the claim. However, the appellate court considered the dispute based on the grounds for including in the register of creditors' claims the consequences of an invalid transaction that did not exist on the date of the trial court's hearing.
Photo: Freepik
The trial court dismissed the creditor's claim because the company's purchase and sales ledger does not qualify as primary documentation confirming the delivery of goods, and the creditor failed to provide any other primary documentation.
The appellate court upheld the claim and found that an exchange of goods had taken place between the creditor and the debtor. Furthermore, the appellate court took into account that the disputed payments had already been the subject of a court investigation in the bankruptcy case of the creditor company, in a dispute over their invalidation. It was determined that the sales transactions to the debtor were invalidated, and the consequences of the invalidity of the transactions were applied, in the form of a collection of funds from the debtor into the bankruptcy estate.
Furthermore, the appellate panel took into account that a motion to postpone the hearing had been filed prior to the start of the court hearing due to the need to provide additional evidence. Thus, the appellate court proceeded from the premise that, in the presence of a final judicial decision confirming the composition and amount of a creditor's claim, the arbitration court determines whether it can be filed during insolvency proceedings and the order of satisfaction without reconsidering the merits of the dispute.
The cassation court remanded the dispute for a new hearing, stating that the validity and amount of creditors' claims are verified regardless of any disagreements regarding these claims between the debtor and persons entitled to raise relevant objections.
In fact, due to the absence of the publication of the operative part of the court's ruling, the creditor was unaware of the hearing of the merits of the dispute. Amendments to the application for inclusion of claims were received by the trial court after the merits of the dispute had been heard.
The appellate court effectively relied on the attached ruling invalidating the transaction and applying the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction. However, the appellate court failed to take into account that the rules on the consolidation and severance of multiple claims are not applied in the appellate arbitration court. Prior to the trial court's decision, the creditor did not file a motion to amend the subject matter or basis of the claim. However, the appellate court considered the dispute based on the grounds for including in the register of creditors' claims the consequences of an invalid transaction that did not exist on the date of the trial court's hearing.
Photo: Freepik
14.11.2025
