In the framework of the bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy Trustee of the\nDebtor (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff, Debtor) appealed to Arbitration Court of the Moscow region with\nthe claim to invalidate a number of money transfer transactions in favor of our\nPrincipal (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant, the Creditor). The\nPlaintiff motivated his claims as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– transactions were made during the observation period, referring to\ntheir completion in order to satisfy the current requirements of the Defendant\nrelated to the 5th stage of satisfaction while there were outstanding current\nrequirements of the 2nd stage on the date of payment (salary);<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– transactions on the transfer of funds are invalid on the basis of\nsection 1 of Article 61.3 of Bankruptcy Law (giving preference to one of the\nCreditors over other Creditors in relation to \nsatisfaction of claims);<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– transactions are void on the basis of Articles 8.3, 8.4, 10, 168 of the Civil Code of the\nRussian Federation as violating the requirements of Articles 10, 168 of the Civil Code of the Federal Law\nof December 29, 2012 N 275-FL \u201cOn the State Defense Order\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lawyers of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure ” got acquainted in detail\nand fully the materials of this case as well as other documents related to this\ndispute, including archival documents of our Principal (prior to the disputed\ntransactions for 3 years). The legal position on this dispute was developed, a\nreasoned Response to the Plaintiff\u2019s statement, was prepared and filed to the\ncourt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the process of considering the case in the court of the first\ninstance, we proved that the filing of an application for declaring the Debtor\nbankrupt, as well as the introduction of one of the bankruptcy procedures, does\nnot mean that the Debtor violates the order of repayment of current debt,\nincluding the payment of wages and related mandatory payments to the budget and\nextra budgetary funds. The Plaintiff did\nnot present the relevant, admissible and, in the aggregate, sufficient evidence\nthat at the time of disputing the transaction the Debtor retained the debts on\npayments of the second stage, which existed at the time of the disputed\ntransaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In addition, the Plaintiff did not provide evidence that the Principal\nwas aware of the presence of signs of insolvency or insufficiency of the\nproperty by the Debtor or of circumstances that allow to conclude, that there\nis a sign of insolvency or insufficiency of property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Principal proved that the transactions disputed by the Plaintiff\nwere concluded in the ordinary course of business that has been carried out\nsince 2014 and for an amount not exceeding 1% of the value of the Debtor’s\nassets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We have submitted archival documents on deliveries to the case\nmaterials, as well as acts of reconciliation of the mutual settlements between\nthe Plaintiff and the Principal as of 2017, 2018, from which it follows that\nthe obligatory legal relations on deliveries have developed between the parties\nsince 2014, the deliveries and payments have been ongoing and systematic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Also, we have proved that, according to sub item 3 of item 1 of part 1\nof Article 8.3 of the Federal Law N 275 FL \u201cOn the State Defense Order\u201d,\npayment of the expenses not related to the state defense order is allowed in\nthe amount of not more than three million rubles per month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Thus, the payment by the Debtor of the supplies for the disputed amount\nis legal, since it has been made in accordance with sub item 3 of item 2 of\npart 1 of Article 8.3 of the Federal Law No. 275-FL \u201cOn the State Defense\nOrder\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On November 15, 2018, the\nArbitration Court of the Moscow region refused to fully satisfy the Plaintiff’s\nrequirements for invalidating disputed transactions in the amount of more than\n1 million rubles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
J.M.Martynenko, lawyer of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De\njure” prepared the legal position\non this case and took part in the first instance court sessions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[111,109],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33154"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33154"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33154\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33155,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33154\/revisions\/33155"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}