Digest of bankruptcy court practice news for the 1st-2nd quarters of 2022
1. The Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation consistently takes the position that the percentage remuneration of the bankruptcy trustee is a stimulating part of his income and should be paid for the effective exercise of his powers. Ruling dated 09.06.2022 in case А40-220454/2017 (305-ЭС22-1346)
In the insolvency (bankruptcy) case of LLC «TPGK-Finance”, the bankruptcy trustee calculated an interest fee in the amount of 16,597,005.05 rubles, three percent of the amount of repaid claims. The register of creditors' claims was canceled due to the following circumstances.
On 21.07.2020, the Debtor and the Creditor Bank entered into a settlement agreement, according to which the receivables were transferred to the bank, and the bank, in turn, transferred 569,038,523.45 rubles to the bankruptcy estate to proportionally satisfy the claims of other creditors, which was done subsequently. Claims for 553,233,508.20 rubles were repaid at the expense of funds transferred by the Bank.
The Creditor Bank objected to the satisfaction of the application of the administrator for the establishment of interest, indicating that the activities of the bankruptcy commissioner did not lead to the replenishment of the bankruptcy estate, and the funds paid by the creditor who received the compensation cannot be taken into account in the calculation of interest on remuneration.
The courts of three instances satisfied the application of the bankruptcy trustee with reference to paragraph 5 of clause 13 of Article 20.6 of the Bankruptcy Law.
Considering the dispute, the Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, referring to paragraph 22 of the Review dated 20.12.2016, indicated the following, within the meaning of Article 20.6 of the Bankruptcy Law, the basis for calculating interest on the bankruptcy trustee’s remuneration does not include the amounts of claims repaid by providing unsold property as compensation. At the same time, the specified base does not include either the repaid claim of the recipient of this property, or the claims of those creditors who were satisfied at the expense of funds distributed in accordance with paragraph 14 of Article 142.1 of the Bankruptcy Law.
Due to the fact that the repayment of the claim was made solely at the expense of the property transferred as compensation, the bankruptcy trustee has no grounds for receiving incentive remuneration.
In the case under consideration, the Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the arguments of the bankruptcy trustee that his actions were connected by the decision of the meeting of creditors on the approval of the regulation on the procedure for the sale of property, in accordance with which the property could not be sold at auction. The court pointed out that the bankruptcy trustee, as a professional crisis specialist, must independently assess the prospects for the sale of the debtor's property in relation to the objectives of bankruptcy proceedings and make appropriate decisions. If there were disagreements with creditors on the terms of the auction, they could be resolved in accordance with Article 60 of the Bankruptcy Law. Thus, the court assigned the responsibility for the ineffective decision of creditors to the bankruptcy trustee, indicating that he must act efficiently and, if necessary, apply to the court in the manner of disagreement.
Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicates that a bankruptcy trustee can receive incentive remuneration if the claims of creditors are repaid as a result of the performance of his duties.
Earlier, in ruling No. 305-ЭС21-9813 dated 23.08.2021 of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in case No. А41-36090/2017, the Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, also referring to paragraph 22 of the Review dated 20.12.2016, indicated that interest on remuneration is an additional stimulating part of the bankruptcy trustee's income, a kind of bonus for actual performance, encouragement for the effective implementation of measures to form and implement the bankruptcy estate under the relevant bankruptcy procedure.
Thus, the Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation once again pointed out that the possibility of accruing an incentive payment is inextricably linked with the actions taken by the bankruptcy trustee, his role in the bankruptcy procedure.
2. Restoration of period to persons brought to subsidiary liability for the Debtor’s obligations.
In November 2021, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation expressed a position on the unconstitutionality of Article 42 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and Article 34 of the Bankruptcy Law to the extent that they do not allow such persons subject to subsidiary liability to appeal against a judicial act on the inclusion of creditors' claims in the bankruptcy register. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation pointed out that the absence in these cases of the opportunity to appeal against a judicial act worsens the procedural possibilities for protecting the rights of persons controlling the debtor.
The adoption in November 2021 of the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation led to active actions on the part of persons brought to subsidiary liability to file an appeal against judicial acts on inclusion in the register of claims of the debtor's creditors, affecting the amount of their liability.
At the same time, until the adoption of amendments to the insolvency (bankruptcy) legislation, the courts determine the period for appeal to such persons and today they have different opinions regarding the moment of calculation of the period.
So, for example, the KDL filed a complaint with the 9 Arbitration Court of Appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance dated 22.02.2018, issued following the consideration of the Company's application for inclusion in the register of claims of the debtor's creditors'.
By definition of the 9 Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 19.11.2021, left unchanged by the decision of the Arbitration Court of Moscow region dated 15.02.2022, the complaint was returned due to the refusal to restore the missed deadline for its submission.
Arbitration Court of Moscow region, considering this case, indicated that the time limit for filing an appeal should be calculated from the moment the application for bringing to subsidiary liability was accepted, in connection with this, a person who did not file an appeal in a timely manner missed the deadline for such an appeal.
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to transfer the cassation appeal for consideration at the court hearing due to absence of any grounds for this. (Determination dated 25.04.2021 No. 305-ЭС22-4261 (4) in case No. 40-153527/2017).
In another case, within the debtor’s bankruptcy case, the creditor's claim is recognized as justified, subject to satisfaction at the expense of the creditors' claims remaining after satisfaction, included in the register of creditors' claims.
Disagreeing with the above judicial act, KDL filed to the court of appeal.
By definition of the 18 Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 02.02.2022, the proceedings on the appeal were terminated due to the missed deadline for appealing the judicial act.
By the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District dated 01.04.2022, the ruling of the court of appeal was canceled, the case was sent for a new consideration to the 18 Arbitration Court of Appeal. When issuing the judicial act, the district court was guided by the clarifications set out in paragraph 14 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 30.06.2020 No. 12 “On the application of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation when considering cases in the arbitration court of appeal” and proceeded from the fact that the appeal filed by Morozov S.A. (a person brought to subsidiary liability) within the maximum allowable six-month period (01.12.2021), since only from the moment the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 16.11.2021 No. 49-P came into force, he had the opportunity to appeal the judicial act on the validity of the applicant's claims to the debtor.
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to transfer the cassation complaint for consideration at the court hearing, due to absence of any grounds for this. (Determination dated 27.05.2022 No. 309-ЭС20-22726 (2) in case No. A76-25117/2018).
Thus, the above cases indicate that, when considering the possibility of restoring the time limit for filing an appeal for persons brought to subsidiary liability, the courts determine the moment of calculating the time limit for appeal differently.
However, there is another noteworthy case.
On 25.11.2021, KDL filed an appeal against the determination of the Arbitration Court of Moscow dated 29.07.2020.
By the decision of the 9 Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 13.12.2021, the KDL's appeal was returned. By the decision of the Arbitration Court of Moscow region dated March 4, 2022, the determination of the court of appeal was left unchanged.
In issuing the judgment, the district court pointed out the following. As of the date of filing an appeal against the ruling dated 29.07.2020, KDL has not been held vicariously liable for the debtor’s obligations, and the judicial act contested by it has not been adopted on its rights and obligations, and therefore, being a person only brought to vicarious liability, it has no right to appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance.
The district court rejected the reference of KDL to the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 16.11.2021 No. 49-P.
At the same time, when making a decision, the district court took into account the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated October 26, 2021 No. 2304-O “On the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of a citizen Kasyanova Galina Ivanovna about the violation of her constitutional rights by Article 42 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 1 of Article 34 , paragraph 1 of Article 61.15 and paragraph 1 of Article 126 of the Federal Law "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)" .
Thus, when resolving this dispute, the district court proceeded from the fact that only persons who have already been brought to subsidiary liability have the right to appeal.
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Bukina A.I. requested the materials of the case, the issue of transferring the case for consideration by the Judicial Board was not resolved.
3. Balancing upon inclusion in the register of creditors' claims.
At the level of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, a stable litigation practice has developed on the issue of distinguishing offsetting from balancing and the possibility of applying the institute of balancing in insolvency (bankruptcy) cases (determinations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 304-ЭС17-14946 dated January 29, 2018, No. 305-ЭС17-17564, dated 02.09.2019 No. 304-ЭС19-11744, dated 08.29.2019 No. 305-ЭС19-10075, dated 11.06.2020 No. 305-ES19-18890 (2), dated 10.12.2020 No. 306-ЭС20-15629 and so on.).
However, this issue most often arises when the debtor's transactions are declared invalid and the consequences are applied. When considering disputes on inclusion in the register of creditors' claims, the balancing is rarely applied.
The company applied to the court with an application to include its claim in the register of creditors' claims for a contractual penalty in the amount of 1,226,769,089 rubles 71 kopecks, accrued in accordance with the terms of the contract (at a rate of 0.4 percent per day of the total price of the contract) for the period from 01.09.2017 (from the day following the day agreed in the contract for the completion of work) till 23.04.2018 (until the day the company receives a notice of suspension of work).
At the same time, in connection with the recovery from the company of 115,509,330 rubles 23 kopecks (the cost of work not paid for by the company, performed under the contract) (decision of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 20.02.2021 in case N A40-99614/2019 of the Arbitration Court of Moscow) the company asked to balance the indicated amount and include 1,111,259,759 rubles 48 kopecks in the register of creditors’ claims (the difference between the amount of the contractual penalty due to the company and the cost of work not paid by it).
In refusing to apply the institution of balancing, the courts of three instances came to the conclusion that the company's requirement for balancing was contrary to the insolvency law.
The Company believes that the establishment of the balance of mutual grants under the contractor's insolvency case does not contradict the rules of Article 61.3 of Federal Law No. 127-FZ dated 26.10.2002 "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)", since in the case of balancing there is no such qualifying feature as the customer receiving any preference – the total amount due to the contractor is reduced by himself by its improper performance of the main obligation, and not by the customer. The conclusions of the courts to the contrary contradict the established judicial arbitration practice, in particular, the legal position set out in the definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 29.08.2019 N 305-ЭС19-10075.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation came to the conclusion that the company's arguments deserve attention and require verification in court.
By ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 305-ЭС19-16942 (40) dated 02.06.2022 in case No. A40-69663/2017, the case was referred to the Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the hearing was scheduled for 14.07.2022.
4. The Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation consistently takes the position that lowering the claims of persons affiliated with the debtor cannot be based solely on the fact of such affiliation. Ruling dated 23.06.2021 in case A40-16105/2017 (305-ES22-81).
In the case of insolvency (bankruptcy) of LLC «MTsZh» Rozov D.M. filed an application for procedural succession of PJSC "Bank Saint Petersburg", whose claims in the amount of 144,632,133.96 rubles, including those secured by a pledge of real estate, are included in the third line of the register of claims of the Debtor's creditors. By the ruling of the court of first instance dated 20.02.2021, left unchanged by the decisions of the courts of appeal dated 20.08.2021 and the district court dated 12.11.2021, the application was denied.
As follows from the case file, Rozov D.M. acted as a guarantor under a credit agreement concluded between Debtor and PJSC "Bank St. Petersburg", due to whose non-fulfillment the bank's claims were included in the register of claims. It should be noted that Rozov D.M. is the majority creditor of the Debtor.
In relation to Rozov D.M. on September 12, 2017, a bankruptcy case (No. A40-152883/2017) was initiated at the request of PJSC “Bank Saint Petersburg”, the latter’s claims were included in the third stage of the register by a court ruling dated December 22, 2017, and a procedure for debt restructuring was introduced. By a court decision dated 31.05.2018, a procedure for the sale of property was introduced.
Subsequently, by a court ruling dated August 20, 2020 in case No. А40-152883/2017, the application of a third party (Ishchenko L.S.) about the intention to pay the claims of creditors Rozov D.M. was satisfied. By a court ruling dated 08.10.2020, the bankruptcy proceedings of Rozov D.M. terminated in connection with the satisfaction of the requirements of creditors, including the bank. These circumstances served as the basis for the appeal of Rozov D.M. to the arbitration court with this application.
Refusing to satisfy the application, the court of first instance qualified the actions of Rozov D.M., who is the majority member of the company, upon filing the relevant application as committed with abuse of the right (Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The court pointed to the corporate nature of his claim, and therefore considered that such a claim could not compete with the claims of independent creditors.
The court of appeal and the district court subsequently agreed with these conclusions, additionally stating that the right to claim has not been transferred to Rozov D.M., since, under the bankruptcy case, the claims of creditors have been repaid by a third party.
Considering this dispute, the Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated that, by virtue of the general rule of paragraph 14 of Article 113 of the Bankruptcy Law, the funds of Ishchenko L.S. are considered to be provided to Rozov D.M. under the terms of an interest-free loan agreement. After the loan was granted, the funds ended up in the property estate of Rozov D.M., who (in the person of financial receiver) used them for settlements with creditors, including the bank.
Consequently, the fulfillment of the obligation to the bank should be qualified as carried out at the expense of the guarantor, which, in turn, entails subrogation. At the same time, the source of funds that the guarantor sent to fulfill this obligation does not matter: it could be either his own funds or borrowed funds (unless their transit took place).
Under such circumstances, the conclusions of the courts that the right to claim has not been transferred to Rozov D.M., as well as the presence of an abuse of the right in his actions cannot be recognized as consistent with the law.
The Board also pointed out that the fulfillment by a guarantor associated with the debtor of the debt obligations of the latter, including at the expense of borrowed funds, does not in itself testify to the corporate nature of these legal relations in the sense given by paragraph 8 of Article 2 of the Bankruptcy Law.
Sending the case for a new hearing to the court of first instance, the Board pointed out that the fact of providing a security to a credit institution from a person affiliated with the borrower does not predetermine how the issue of the priority of repayment of the subrogation claims of the guarantor should be resolved.
Clause 6.1 of the judicial practice of resolving disputes related to the establishment in bankruptcy proceedings of the claims of the persons controlling debtor and the debtor’s affiliated persons, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 29.01.2020, discloses the situation when the order of satisfaction of the subrogation claim of the creditor, which is the person controlling the debtor, is reduced if this creditor entered into an agreement with an independent creditor to provide security for the debtor given the latter's financial crisis, thereby providing compensatory financing.
Such a claim of the guarantor cannot compete with the claims of other creditors and is subject to satisfaction in the order preceding the distribution of the liquidation quota.
The courts, having established exclusively the affiliation of the Person and the Debtor, did not check the property status of the latter at the time of providing the guarantee, while the establishment of this circumstance is an important criterion for lowering the priority. If this security is provided not in the conditions of the financial crisis of the company, the satisfaction of the subrogation claim is not subject to a reduction in the order.
Thus, the Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation once again pointed out to the lower courts that the subordination of claims of creditors affiliated with the Debtor cannot occur solely on the basis of the fact of affiliation
5. The head of the company cannot be released from subsidiary liability for his inaction expressed in the failure to control the actions of employees. Ruling dated 30.05.2022 in case А41-88908/2018 (305-ЭС22-2095)
In the bankruptcy procedure introduced in relation to CJSC “Zagotovitel” (hereinafter referred to as “Zagotovitel”), the bankruptcy trustee of the said company applied to the court to bring its former head Volodin V.G. and shareholders Kuzovkin D.V. and Levashova S.B. to subsidiary liability.
The bankruptcy trustee referred to the improper fulfillment by the head of CJSC “Zagotovitel” of the obligation to maintain (compile), store and transfer to the bankruptcy trustee documentation related to the operation of the “Kuchino” solid domestic waste landfill (the main activity of the Debtor was the disposal of solid domestic waste), as well as the carrying of illegal activities for the disposal of solid domestic waste by the aforementioned company under the influence of its controlling persons, which entailed the obligation to pay 6,292,424,200 rubles in compensation for damage caused to the environment (the claimant is the administration of the Balashikha urban district (hereinafter referred to as the administration).
By the ruling of the court of first instance dated 23.08.2021, left unchanged by the decisions of the courts of appeal dated 07.10.2021 and the district court dated 28.12.2021, the application was denied.
Refusing to satisfy the application for bringing to subsidiary liability, the courts proceeded from the fact that the obligation to transfer the documentation of “Zagotovitel” to the bankruptcy trustee was not fulfilled by Volodin V.G. in connection with its seizure by law enforcement agencies. The courts considered that the persons guilty of causing harm to the environment were established by the sentence of the Balashikha City Court of Moscow region dated 07.06.2018, namely Korchagina E.S. (worked from 23.10.2012 as an environmental engineer, and from 01.12.2013 as deputy general director for ecology) and Kornilaev E.A. (worked from 15.10.2012 as a landfill foreman). They were found guilty of committing a crime, responsibility for which is provided for by Part 2 of Article 247 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (violation of the rules for handling environmentally hazardous substances and waste), while in relation to Volodin V.G. the investigator issued a decision dated February 14, 2018 on the refusal to initiate a criminal case on the grounds of crimes provided for by Articles 247, 293 and 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Based on an extract from the register of legal entities, the courts did not recognize Kuzovkina D.V. and Levashov S.B. as persons controlling “Zagotovitel” due to the fact that they owned minority stakes.
Considering this dispute and sending the case for a new consideration to the court of first instance, the Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated that when determining the scope of the named duties imputed to the director, it should be taken into account that he really has the right to delegate specific functions to subordinate employees, trust their competence and honesty to a reasonable limit. However, the director who has exercised the right to delegate cannot withdraw from control over the performance of the delegated functions. According to the meaning of the explanations given in paragraphs 2 and 3 of clause 5 of Resolution No. 62, when resolving the issue of whether or not the C director EO has fulfilled these duties, the circumstances of each specific case should be taken into account, in particular, such as the nature and scale of economic activities of the controlled legal entity, the actual situation at the enterprise, on which the range of direct duties of the director, his role in the management of the legal entity depend.
Based on the nature of the main activity of the company, the scale of the imputed violations, the director could not have been unaware of these violations.
Therefore, he has no right to formally refer to the fact that he delegated the functions of determining waste disposal sites to the environmental engineer and landfill foreman, since the director is in any case responsible for inaction, expressed in the failure to control the actions of employees.
Contrary to the conclusions of the courts, the fact that Volodin V.G. to criminal liability does not indicate the absence of a civil offense. The decision of the investigator to refuse to initiate criminal proceedings against Volodin V.G. does not form a prejudice for the arbitration court (Article 69 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).
The courts should investigate the issues of whether environmental damage would have been caused and, as a result, there would have been an objective bankruptcy of "Zagotovitel" when Volodin V.G. built an appropriate control system corresponding to normal business practice.
The Board also pointed out that without clarifying the circumstances of the transfer to the registrar of the register of shareholders of CJSC “Zagotovitel”, the location of the register, whether it was seized by law enforcement agencies, as well as without identifying the persons who are the shareholders of the company, the conclusion of the courts about the minority nature of Kuzovkin D.V. and Levashov S.B. in “Zagotovitel” is premature, because after 01.10.2014 the company did not transfer the register of shareholders to an independent registrar.
6. The Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation reminded the lower courts that the running of the limitation period for a vindication claim cannot be made dependent on the knowledge of the bankruptcy trustee. Ruling dated 23.05.2022 in case A63-295/2020 (308-ЭС21-21093).
Bankruptcy trustee of LLC «Tonus» filed a claim for vindication of property, pointing out that on 15.10.2019 the individual entrepreneur Chalova V.A. transferred documents that were found in the archive during the inspection and cleaning of the premises of the car dealership purchased on 09.10.2019 together with a service station at the address: Stavropol, Yuzhny obkhod str., 57, in particular, design technical documentation and a number of documents of title to the property of the debtor – LLC "Tonus".
As a justification for the right to the disputed property, the plaintiff referred to the contract РБК/Т/05/2010, according to which on 31.05.2010 LLC "Tonus" purchased from Limited liability company TPK "Rubikon" a set of technological equipment for a car service station at the address: Stavropol, Kulakova pr., 16a.
According to paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5 of the agreement, the goods used were not pledged, have not been burdened with obligations of third parties. The equipment was handed over by the seller and accepted by the buyer at the place of its installation in the auto center of Stavropol, Kulakova pr., 16a; this circumstance is confirmed by the consignment note dated 31.05.2010 No. 325. The goods have been accepted for accounting, and are currently on the balance sheet of LLC “Tonus”.
Meanwhile, according to the data of the Unified State Register of Real Estate, the building of the auto center at the indicated address is currently owned by LLC “SBSV-Klyuchavto” Group of Companies.
Previously, the object belonged to Public Joint-Stock Company “MDM Bank” (currently – Public Joint-Stock Company “Financial Corporation Otkritie” Bank (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank”), which accepted the specified real estate as a pledge creditor due to the recognition of the auction as invalid in the bankruptcy procedure of the debtor of Limited liability company "Nedvizhimost DM".
Subsequently, under the sale and purchase agreement dated 31.10.2016, Public Joint-Stock Company “MDM Bank” (seller) alienated the property to Limited liability company “SBSV-Klyuchavto” Group of Companies. The transfer of ownership of the property to the buyer was registered on 30.11.2016.
When the owner of the auto center changed, the technological equipment installed in it, owned by the company, was not dismantled, it is still located in the auto center building, the equipment is used by the defendants in their activities. Considering that the disputed equipment together with the car center was not alienated by the bank to the defendant, in connection with which it is in its illegal possession, LLC “Tonus” considered that there were grounds for reclaiming the disputed property.
Considering the application of LLC "SBSV-Klyuchavto" on the application of the limitation period, the courts of lower instances indicated that the violation of the rights to return the disputed property to the bankruptcy trustee (plaintiff), taking into account the peculiarities of its legal status, determined by the Federal Law dated 26.10.2020 No. 127-FZ "On insolvency (bankruptcy)”, became known only on 15.10.2019, namely from the moment of receipt of title documents to the debtor’s property from the individual entrepreneur Chalova V.A. Since the bankruptcy trustee filed this claim with the court on 13.01.2020, the three-year limitation period calculated according to the rules of Article 200 of the Civil Code, according to the courts, has not expired. At the same time, as the courts pointed out, the refusal to apply the limitation period in this particular case corresponds to the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Civil Code, the lawsuit in question was filed in the interests of bankruptcy creditors in order to satisfy their claims.
The Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, considering the dispute and sending the case for a new consideration to the court of first instance, pointed out that the limitation period begins from the day when the person learned or should have learned about the violation of his right and who is the proper defendant in the claim for the protection of this right. Prior to the introduction of the bankruptcy procedure, LLC “Tonus”, which had lost actual ownership of the property long before filing a claim with the bankruptcy trustee, did not declare the return of property in its own interests. At the same time, the limitation period for the claims of a legal entity begins from the day when a person who has the right to act independently or jointly with other persons on behalf of a legal entity learned or should have learned about the violation of the right of a legal entity and about the proper defendant (paragraph 1 of Article 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). A change in the composition of the bodies of a legal entity does not affect the determination of the beginning of the limitation period.
The determination of the beginning of the limitation period from the date when the bankruptcy trustee became aware of the violation of the rights of the bankrupt organization violates the provisions of Article 200 of the Civil Code, which links its course with the violation of the rights of the person himself, and this circumstance, by virtue of the law, does not affect the other course of the limitation period on this claim. At the same time, the protection of the rights of creditors of a bankrupt organization based on the basic principles of civil legislation, based on the recognition of equality of participants in the relations regulated by it, inviolability of property, freedom of contract, cannot in this case have special priority over other participants in civil legal relations, and a statement on the application of the limitation period is an abuse of law.