The case was won in the Arbitration court of the Moscow region: the court denied the Plaintiff to invalidate transactions on the transfer of funds in the amount of more than 1 million rubles to our Principal

In the framework of the bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy Trustee of the Debtor (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff, Debtor) appealed to  Arbitration Court of the Moscow region with the claim to invalidate a number of money transfer transactions in favor of our Principal (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant, the Creditor). The Plaintiff motivated his claims as follows:

– transactions were made during the observation period, referring to their completion in order to satisfy the current requirements of the Defendant related to the 5th stage of satisfaction while there were outstanding current requirements of the 2nd stage on the date of payment (salary);

– transactions on the transfer of funds are invalid on the basis of section 1 of Article 61.3 of Bankruptcy Law (giving preference to one of the Creditors over other Creditors in relation to  satisfaction of claims);

– transactions are void on the basis of Articles  8.3, 8.4, 10, 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as violating the requirements of Articles  10, 168 of the Civil Code of the Federal Law of December 29, 2012 N 275-FL “On the State Defense Order”.

Lawyers of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers  “De jure ” got acquainted in detail and fully the materials of this case as well as other documents related to this dispute, including archival documents of our Principal (prior to the disputed transactions for 3 years). The legal position on this dispute was developed, a reasoned Response to the Plaintiff’s statement, was prepared and filed to the court.

In the process of considering the case in the court of the first instance, we proved that the filing of an application for declaring the Debtor bankrupt, as well as the introduction of one of the bankruptcy procedures, does not mean that the Debtor violates the order of repayment of current debt, including the payment of wages and related mandatory payments to the budget and extra budgetary funds.  The Plaintiff did not present the relevant, admissible and, in the aggregate, sufficient evidence that at the time of disputing the transaction the Debtor retained the debts on payments of the second stage, which existed at the time of the disputed transaction.

In addition, the Plaintiff did not provide evidence that the Principal was aware of the presence of signs of insolvency or insufficiency of the property by the Debtor or of circumstances that allow to conclude, that there is a sign of insolvency or insufficiency of property.

The Principal proved that the transactions disputed by the Plaintiff were concluded in the ordinary course of business that has been carried out since 2014 and for an amount not exceeding 1% of the value of the Debtor’s assets.

We have submitted archival documents on deliveries to the case materials, as well as acts of reconciliation of the mutual settlements between the Plaintiff and the Principal as of 2017, 2018, from which it follows that the obligatory legal relations on deliveries have developed between the parties since 2014, the deliveries and payments have been ongoing and systematic.

Also, we have proved that, according to sub item 3 of item 1 of part 1 of Article 8.3 of the Federal Law N 275 FL “On the State Defense Order”, payment of the expenses not related to the state defense order is allowed in the amount of not more than three million rubles per month.

Thus, the payment by the Debtor of the supplies for the disputed amount is legal, since it has been made in accordance with sub item 3 of item 2 of part 1 of Article 8.3 of the Federal Law No. 275-FL “On the State Defense Order”.

 On November 15, 2018, the Arbitration Court of the Moscow region refused to fully satisfy the Plaintiff’s requirements for invalidating disputed transactions in the amount of more than 1 million rubles.

J.M.Martynenko, lawyer of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” prepared  the legal position on this case and took part in the first instance court sessions.