RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
18/12/2024
Wednesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
18 December 
1970 France, on behalf of 25 EU countries, called for the decriminalization of same-sex relations.
1970 France, on behalf of 25 EU countries, called for the decriminalization of same-sex relations.
1970 The slavery was abolished in the United States.
1970 the slavery in the United States was abolished.
1970 The anthem of the Russian Empire “God Save the Tsar!” was performed for the first time.
18 December
1970 France, on behalf of 25 EU countries, called for the decriminalization of same-sex relations.
1970 France, on behalf of 25 EU countries, called for the decriminalization of same-sex relations.
1970 The slavery was abolished in the United States.
1970 the slavery in the United States was abolished.
1970 The anthem of the Russian Empire “God Save the Tsar!” was performed for the first time.
An appeal for 1.8 billion rubles was filed in the bankruptcy case of ‘Grand-Stroy’ company.
On November 16, 2021, the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal will have to consider the issue of the claim against the ‘Grand-Stroy’ bankrupt company. A complaint against the decision of the court of first instance was filed by Investika company, which demands that 1.8 billion rubles be included in the register of company’s debts to creditors.
‘Grand-Stroy’ JSC (TIN 7715846517) was declared bankrupt at the end of November 2020 (case No. À40-196893 / 20-174-248). The company itself filed an application with the court on October 16, 2020, having indicated the presence of a debt of 2.5 billion rubles. Since the company was in the process of liquidation, the insolvency procedure was carried out in a simplified manner. Roman Sinchenko, representing the ‘MSO PAU’ Association was entrusted with the duties of bankruptcy trustee.
The fact is that the claims of Investika were based on the contracts of 2013 and 2014 related to the purchase of securities. The creditors subsequently ceded their rights to the Cypriot firm Exom Operation Ltd. According to the documents, Investika received the rights of claim by way of assignment from the latter.
However, as reported in a recent publication of the @ruarbitr Telegram channel, there were many dubious details in materials of the case. The original creditors of ‘Grand-Stroy’ had already been in the process of liquidation, and their representatives refused to recognize the authenticity of the signatures on the documents, claiming falsification.
‘Grand-Stroy’ JSC (TIN 7715846517) was declared bankrupt at the end of November 2020 (case No. À40-196893 / 20-174-248). The company itself filed an application with the court on October 16, 2020, having indicated the presence of a debt of 2.5 billion rubles. Since the company was in the process of liquidation, the insolvency procedure was carried out in a simplified manner. Roman Sinchenko, representing the ‘MSO PAU’ Association was entrusted with the duties of bankruptcy trustee.
On August 16, 2021, the Moscow Arbitration Court refused to include Investika's claims in the register of the the accounts payable.
The judge agreed with the objection of the bankruptcy trustee, who indicated that the statute of limitations had been missed (Article 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) and rejected the claim of the company. At the same time, Judge Yevgenia Lugovik indicated that the reconciliation acts dated October 2019 had no legal significance.The fact is that the claims of Investika were based on the contracts of 2013 and 2014 related to the purchase of securities. The creditors subsequently ceded their rights to the Cypriot firm Exom Operation Ltd. According to the documents, Investika received the rights of claim by way of assignment from the latter.
However, as reported in a recent publication of the @ruarbitr Telegram channel, there were many dubious details in materials of the case. The original creditors of ‘Grand-Stroy’ had already been in the process of liquidation, and their representatives refused to recognize the authenticity of the signatures on the documents, claiming falsification.
The Cypriot company, which according to the documents ceded rights 3.5 months before having received 1.5 billion rubles, found itself in the status of ‘dissolved’ - subject to final dissolution.
The contracts with the Cypriot company indicated banking details of the debtor company, which appeared no earlier than two years after the date of signing. A number of misprints in the spelling of surnames, first names and the name of the offshore company are also noteworthy. It is interesting, what decision will the appeal instance make in the context of the above mentioned circumstances? 15.11.2021
