Appeal the actions of the bankruptcy administrator

We successfully defended the interests of the Creditor in a dispute with the bankruptcy administrator (BA). The dispute arose because the BA refused to include the Creditor’s claim in the creditors’ claims register (CCR), despite a court decision confirming the debt.

Our client (the Creditor) had lease contracts with the Debtor, secured by a personal guarantee (the Guarantor). Since the Debtor failed to make lease payments on time, the Creditor filed a claim to recover the debt from both the Debtor and the Guarantor. However, during the court proceedings, it was revealed that the Debtor was undergoing bankruptcy. The court continued the case against the Guarantor and ruled in favor of the Creditor, ordering the Guarantor to pay the debt and penalties.

Later, the Creditor asked the BA to include the confirmed debt in the CCR. However, the BA refused, arguing that the court decision was against the Guarantor, not the Debtor. As a result, the Creditor decided to challenge the BA’s actions in court under Article 91 of the Law «On Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy» (Law), which states:

«If a creditor disagrees with the decision of the temporary or bankruptcy administrator, they have the right to appeal it in court within ten working days from the date of receiving the notification of the decision on their claim».

Arguments of the creditor:

(1) The Creditor presented the court decision against the Guarantor because the Guarantor was fully responsible for ensuring the Debtor fulfilled its lease payment obligations. The court had recognized the Debtor’s debt in this decision.

(2) Under article 90-3 of the Law, creditors must submit documents confirming the basis and amount of the claim (such as final court decisions, contracts, or debt acknowledgments). Furthermore, article 90-8 of the Law states that creditors might claim the principal debt, penalties, and other fines from the Debtor.

(3) The BA was required to include the debt in the CCR based on the principle of joint liability, as outlined in articles 287 and 329 of the Civil Code of Kazakhstan.

(4) The Creditor also submitted additional documents proving the claim, including lease contracts, debt calculations, and reconciliation acts.

Arguments of the BA:

(1) The claim was rejected because there was no direct court decision ordering the Debtor (only the Guarantor) to pay the debt.

During the court process, both parties reached a mediation agreement, which was approved by the court. Under this agreement the BA agreed to include the Creditor’s debt in the CCR and the Creditor withdrew its claim.

The court’s approval of the mediation agreement confirms its legal validity and enforceability under Kazakh law.

Therefore, creditors should use all available legal grounds to have their claims included in the CCR (such as court decisions, contracts, and reconciliation acts). If a claim is rejected, challenging the decision in court might help restore justice.

Besides, this case highlights the effectiveness of mediation in bankruptcy disputes. Mediation offers a faster and more cost-effective way to resolve conflicts compared to lengthy court proceedings.