• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site

Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 28 February 2012 № 15935/11 in the case The bank “Zenit” vs Serghei Birkle, the bankruptcy trustee of the company “Tvins-Kaliningrad”

Point of law: if a bankruptcy creditor submits to the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor company the evidence that a debtor company transaction is suspect, whether the bankruptcy trustee must challenge such transaction in court?

Alternative attitudes: 1) the recourse to court in such circumstances is a duty of bankruptcy trustee; 2) the recourse to court is his right, not a duty; 3) the recourse to court is his right, but his refusal to make such recourse should be properly substantiated; otherwise his discharge of his duties cannot be considered proper, reasonable and in good faith.

Ratio decidendi: the third attitude is legally correct.

Practical consequences: the Judgment says that prior court decisions in analogous cases if inconsistent with this interpretation may be reversed in the procedure and within the limits envisaged by Art 311 of the Commercial Procedure Code.

Text

 

Have you spotted a typo?
Highlight it, click Ctrl+Enter and send us a message. Thank you for your help!
To be used only for spelling or punctuation mistakes.