March 12 Main results of the day

The Moscow Arbitration Court satisfied the application of the Principal, who is a collateral creditor in the bankruptcy case, regarding disagreement with the decision of the bankruptcy trustee to impose on him the costs of paying income tax and rent in the amount of more than 70 million rubles when keeping the collateral property for him.

At the same time, the court was guided by the recent clarifications set out by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in Resolution №28-П dated May 31, 2023, according to which requirements for payment of corporate income tax upon the sale of property constituting the bankruptcy estate in a bankruptcy case are subject to satisfaction as part of the third queue of creditors’ claims included in the register.

At the same time, the circumstances of this isolated dispute differed from the cases considered earlier taking into account the law enforcement practice that developed after the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopted the above-mentioned Resolution.

In this case, the collateral property was not sold at auction to third parties, but was retained by the collateral creditor.

Thus, the court agreed with the Bureau’s position that, in its civil law essence and within the meaning of clause 4.1 of Article 138 of the Bankruptcy Law, leaving the pledged subject for oneself is a form of sale of the pledged property along with its sale at auction; and an agreement for leaving the pledged subject for oneself is an analogue of a purchase and sale agreement.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Viktor Pokormyak, attorney of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, and Natalia Safonova, senior lawyer.

The Bureau defended the Principal in a dispute with an unscrupulous contractor. Having received an advance payment, the contractor undertook to carry out construction work in the Principal’s country house.

In violation of the terms of the contract, the contractor performed the work poorly and submitted them for acceptance with delay.

However, this did not prevent the Contractor from going to court with a demand to the Principal to force him to pay the full price under the contract.

During the trial, however, the fact of poorly performed work was confirmed; the court satisfied the Principal’s counterclaim against the Contractor for the collection of a penalty for violation of the deadline for completing work, losses, and a fine under the law on consumer protection in the amount of more than 5.8 million rubles.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Yakov Prisyazhnyuk, Head of the practice of resolving economic disputes.