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 WAGES BECOME A THREAT TO THE COMPETITIVE MASSES
The debtor's manager appealed to the court with a demand to invalidate transactions involving the transfer of funds to the defendant (case no. A45-31919/22).
In rejecting the application, the court of first instance concluded that the defendant had been engaged in the debtor's work and that the debtor had no signs of insolvency during the period of the disputed payments. The court, after analyzing the evidence presented, pointed to the payment of the debtor's counterparty's bills before the signs of insolvency appeared. The court took into account the facts of debt payment to the counterparty until the moment of challenging the transactions.
Satisfying the stated requirements, the Court of Appeal recognized that the transfers had no counter-provision, since the defendant had not proven the actual fulfillment of labor duties. The Court noted that as a result of the payments, damage was caused to the property rights of the debtor's creditors. The court rejected the arguments about the existence of an employment relationship due to the lack of supporting documents.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out the need to establish the presence or absence of unfulfilled obligations to creditors on the date of each of the disputed payments. The Court noted that the lower courts had not given a proper assessment of the evidence available in the case and the arguments of the persons involved in the case. The court stressed the importance of verifying the reality of the defendant's employment functions and the proportionality of the remuneration paid to the amount of work performed.
The Court drew attention to the need to analyze the relationship between the defendant and the debtor in order to determine the burden of proof. It was also pointed out that there were contradictions in the conclusions of the lower courts regarding the presence of signs of the debtor's insolvency at the time of the disputed payments.
In addition, the court stressed the importance of investigating the issue of the time when creditors' claims arose in relation to the date of the disputed transactions.
Photo: Freepik
In rejecting the application, the court of first instance concluded that the defendant had been engaged in the debtor's work and that the debtor had no signs of insolvency during the period of the disputed payments. The court, after analyzing the evidence presented, pointed to the payment of the debtor's counterparty's bills before the signs of insolvency appeared. The court took into account the facts of debt payment to the counterparty until the moment of challenging the transactions.
Satisfying the stated requirements, the Court of Appeal recognized that the transfers had no counter-provision, since the defendant had not proven the actual fulfillment of labor duties. The Court noted that as a result of the payments, damage was caused to the property rights of the debtor's creditors. The court rejected the arguments about the existence of an employment relationship due to the lack of supporting documents.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out the need to establish the presence or absence of unfulfilled obligations to creditors on the date of each of the disputed payments. The Court noted that the lower courts had not given a proper assessment of the evidence available in the case and the arguments of the persons involved in the case. The court stressed the importance of verifying the reality of the defendant's employment functions and the proportionality of the remuneration paid to the amount of work performed.
The Court drew attention to the need to analyze the relationship between the defendant and the debtor in order to determine the burden of proof. It was also pointed out that there were contradictions in the conclusions of the lower courts regarding the presence of signs of the debtor's insolvency at the time of the disputed payments.
In addition, the court stressed the importance of investigating the issue of the time when creditors' claims arose in relation to the date of the disputed transactions.
Photo: Freepik
06.11.2025
