The Supreme Court stressed the necessity to study more carefully the circumstances of a dispute on offset of liabilities

Attorney of ART DE LEX Restructuring and Bankruptcy Practice Roman Prokofiev emphasized that the RF Supreme Court ruling causes questions that can be answered only through familiarization with the case materials. «On the one hand, when you read the act for the first time, it seems that the Supreme Court correctly resolved an error regarding correctness of interpretation of movement of funds: the debtor transferred money under a loan agreement, and after a short period of time received their refund, but did not transfer the money to its counterparty twice, which was the assumption lower-instance courts proceeded from. On the other hand, analysis of all acts related to the standalone dispute brings us to a conclusion that not two, but three transactions are present here: payment order (1) of 10 November 2017, where the debtor granted a loan for 450 thousand roubles, payment order (2) of 27 November 2017 on return of the funds in the same amount, and also payment order (3) of 27 November 2017, with which the debtor, according to the appeal instance act, granted a loan to its counterparty», - he stated , adding that the last transaction of the debtor is not examined in the Supreme Court ruling.

Click here for more information: www.advgazeta.ru