RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
21/07/2026
Tuesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
21 July 
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
21 July
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
YOU CAN'T HIDE EVERYTHING AND BE AN HONEST BANKRUT
The manager filed a request with the court to complete the procedure for the sale of the debtor's property (case No. A41-49202/17).
The courts of two instances refused to release the debtor from his obligations, as the court of general jurisdiction had proven that the debtor had acted illegally when the obligation arose and was fulfilled, on which the competitive creditor based its claim in the bankruptcy case.
The Court of Cassation sent the case back for a new trial, pointing out that, according to the creditor's arguments, the debtor had acted in bad faith throughout the entire period, failing to take any measures to repay the debt that had arisen on his side, including by selling all of his property and filing for bankruptcy without notifying the creditor.
During the debtor's property sale procedure, it was established that at the time of the bankruptcy procedure, the debtor owned 12,000 shares of the company, which were not included in the inventory of property.
In addition, the court rulings in the case established that during the debtor's property sale procedure, a gift agreement for real estate was concluded without notifying the manager or the parties involved in the case. This agreement was subsequently challenged.
In addition, the court's decisions on the recognition of the manager's actions as illegal and the recovery of damages from him established facts indicating that the debtor had open bank accounts that were not known to the court, as well as the fact that the debtor had withdrawn funds from these accounts in excess of the minimum subsistence level, which were not included in the bankruptcy estate.
The courts did not take into account the facts previously established in the bankruptcy case, and did not assess them in their entirety for the purpose of determining the debtor's good faith/bad faith behavior, which is a significant violation that influenced the outcome of the case.
The courts of two instances refused to release the debtor from his obligations, as the court of general jurisdiction had proven that the debtor had acted illegally when the obligation arose and was fulfilled, on which the competitive creditor based its claim in the bankruptcy case.
The Court of Cassation sent the case back for a new trial, pointing out that, according to the creditor's arguments, the debtor had acted in bad faith throughout the entire period, failing to take any measures to repay the debt that had arisen on his side, including by selling all of his property and filing for bankruptcy without notifying the creditor.
During the debtor's property sale procedure, it was established that at the time of the bankruptcy procedure, the debtor owned 12,000 shares of the company, which were not included in the inventory of property.
In addition, the court rulings in the case established that during the debtor's property sale procedure, a gift agreement for real estate was concluded without notifying the manager or the parties involved in the case. This agreement was subsequently challenged.
In addition, the court's decisions on the recognition of the manager's actions as illegal and the recovery of damages from him established facts indicating that the debtor had open bank accounts that were not known to the court, as well as the fact that the debtor had withdrawn funds from these accounts in excess of the minimum subsistence level, which were not included in the bankruptcy estate.
The courts did not take into account the facts previously established in the bankruptcy case, and did not assess them in their entirety for the purpose of determining the debtor's good faith/bad faith behavior, which is a significant violation that influenced the outcome of the case.
10.07.2026
