SIGNUM successfully defended clients against unsubstantiated claims from bankruptcy managers

As part of our firm’s litigation practice, we have successfully concluded two cases involving claims brought by bankruptcy managers: one concerning the collection of accounts receivable and the other concerning unjust enrichmenеt.

In the first case, the client approached us after a private bailiff notified the company’s director of initiated enforcement proceedings, which threatened to freeze accounts and impose a travel ban. Upon reviewing the case materials, it became clear that the court had issued a decision under summary proceedings six months earlier, but the client had not been properly notified of the proceedings. We immediately filed a motion to vacate the judgment with a request to restore the statute of limitations. The court granted the motion, vacated the judgment, and scheduled a new hearing.

Upon reviewing the case, it was established that the claims related to an alleged debt owed to the creditor; however, there was no evidence of its existence in the case file: there were no bank statements, electronic invoices, contracts, or other documents confirming the existence of obligations between the parties. We prepared and filed a response to the complaint with the court, in which we consistently pointed out the lack of a legal basis for the claims, refuted the allegation that funds had been received by providing a bank statement, argued that the burden of proof rested with the plaintiff, and noted a violation of the mandatory procedure for establishing and documenting the debt.

The bankruptcy manager, having reviewed the documents submitted by us, filed a motion to leave the claim without consideration. The court granted the motion and issued the corresponding ruling the very next day.

The second case was heard in a different city. The bankruptcy manager filed a claim for unjust enrichment, presenting evidence that appeared convincing at first glance: e-invoice and a bank statement confirmed two transfers that the plaintiff characterized as unjust enrichment on the part of the defendant. However, a detailed analysis of the circumstances of the case revealed that the payments in question constituted the fulfillment of obligations by a third party with whom the client had entered into a relevant agreement. This circumstance is directly reflected in the purpose of the payments themselves. A check of publicly available government registries further established that the founder of both the plaintiff and the aforementioned third party is the same person. In our response to the complaint, we set forth a legal position based on the admissibility of performance of obligations by a third party, the affiliation between the plaintiff and the debtor, and the absence of all elements constituting unjust enrichment. After the bankruptcy manager reviewed the submitted documents and filed a motion to dismiss the claim, the court granted the motion.

Both cases confirm that the mere presence of documents attached to a complaint does not, in and of itself, prove the validity of the claims made. Given the significant increase in the number of such claims, we recommend that companies pay close attention to pre-litigation notices from bankruptcy managers, respond to them in a timely manner, and provide supporting documentation. This significantly reduces the risk of the dispute proceeding to court.