The Judgment points out that paragraph 2 of Article 103 of Bankruptcy Law requires in some circumstances a consent of the committee of creditors of the debtor in order to conclude a transaction, but at the same time courts must keep in mind that if the contractor is able to show that the purpose of the transaction was not to cause damage to creditors or the debtor, or that at the moment of its conclusion he did not know and ought not to know about such purpose of the transaction, the latter may not be deemed void by a court.

In particular, in case of challenging a contract of surety or pledge which the debtor entered into for the sake of securing an obligation of an interested person, the following circumstances may be taken into consideration: whether the debtor and interested person were solvent at the moment of conclusion of the contract in question, whether its conclusion was purported to further normal economic interests of the debtor (for instance, for receiving by the interested person a credit necessary for the development of a joint business  with the debtor), what relation between the value of surety and debtor’s net assets there was at the moment of the conclusion of the contract, whether the opportunity of the debtor to be reimbursed after the discharge of his obligation was properly secured (for example, by pledging the property of the interested person) etc, and also whether the creditor knew or ought to know about such circumstances.

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