In this judgment the Supreme Commercial Court has explained:

• which court documents should be appended by the creditor to his application on deeming the debtor to be bankrupt (para 1);
• the consequences of repealing or stopping the execution of a court decision, on which such application of the creditor was based (paras 2-3);
• the grounds for terminating proceedings fully or partially in case of eliciting the fact of the debtor’s bankruptcy application being filed by a person not having a right to do so (para 5);
• the sequence of consideration and the procedural status of several applications on debtor’s bankruptcy filed with the same court (para 7);
• which court should assume jurisdiction in case of a change of debtor’s place of residence after the initiation of the case (para 8);
• procedural peculiarities of considering the so-called autonomous disputes, i.e. the disputes in each of which not all, but some of parties to a bankruptcy case or parties to a commercial court procedure concerning bankruptcy participate; besides, there were specified the set of persons qualifying as direct participants of an autonomous dispute and the procedure for distributing litigation expenses in bankruptcy cases  (paras 14-19);
• the conditions under which the time periods for creditors to submit their claims against the debtor will be deemed to be observed (paras 20-21);
• the circumstances which courts should take into account when evaluating the credibility of the claims in order to avoid the inclusion of ungrounded claims into the register of claims (paras 24-26);
• procedural rights of creditors dependent on the fact of their claims having arisen before or after the initiation of bankruptcy case (paras 27-34);
• grounds for reversal of court decisions delivered within bankruptcy cases, in one of the procedures for their reconsideration  envisaged by law (paras 35-40);
• the conditions under which an arbitration trustee may be dismissed.

Practical consequences: the Judgment does not provide for the possibility to reverse inconsistent court decisions in earlier cases by virtue of Art 311 of the Commercial Procedure Code. Therefore, its ratio decidendi has only prospective force.