The bankruptcy trustee of the company decided to challenge the transaction, since it was made between affiliated persons during the period of the company's insolvency – in order to harm the property rights of other creditors.
The court declared the transaction invalid and obliged the counterparty to return the property to the bankruptcy estate.
The counterparty executed the court's ruling, only returned the car literally disassembled. The car had no engine and gearbox, battery, attachments and assemblies were in the engine compartment, the body had numerous damages, and the exterior of the interior was spoiled and dirty.
The bankruptcy trustee evaluated the car and sold it at auction. It seemed obvious that the unfair actions of the counterparty to the transaction affected the market value of the car.
Further, the bankruptcy trustee appealed to the arbitration court with a claim for recovery of losses from the counterparty.
The calculation of losses was made as the difference between the cost of a hypothetically serviceable analogue and the sale price of the car at auction with the reduction of the cost on the date of summing up the auction.
The claim was justified by the fact that under the contract of sale, the bankrupt company transferred the property in proper condition without indicating any shortcomings, which means that the damage to the car was caused during the period of use directly by the counterparty. These circumstances did not allow the bankruptcy trustee to sell the property at a higher price.
The forensic examination determined that the market value of the car in complete and serviceable condition would amount to 2 million rubles. At the same time, the bankruptcy trustee managed to sell the car at auction for only 1 million rubles.
Thus, the probable amount of losses amounted to approximately 1 million rubles.
Traditionally, the law connects the possibility of collecting damages with a number of circumstances: the occurrence of harm, the illegality of the behavior and guilt of the harm-doer, the presence of a causal relationship between them and the amount of losses.
The existence of the totality of these circumstances was proved and the bankruptcy trustee's application was fully satisfied.
The counterparty of the bankrupt company, trying to convince the Court of Appeal of the honesty of his actions, argued that the mere presence of a car in possession and use does not indicate his guilty actions. The car, according to him, was already in poor condition at the time of the transfer, so its price was significantly lower than the market.
The Court of Appeal did not agree with the arguments of the counterparty, since he did not provide evidence of the car being in unsatisfactory condition at the time of transfer under the contract.
In general, the judges regarded the transaction concluded on economically unfavorable terms as a friendly gesture aimed at withdrawing property from the bankruptcy estate in order to save it from independent creditors.