Cassation Court Upholds Trustee's Disqualification and Recovery of RUB 40 Million in Damages

According to PRObankrotstvo, the bankruptcy officer failed to make payments to creditors despite a bank balance exceeding RUB 90 million. As a result, the court declared the officer's inaction unlawful and awarded damages (Case No. A41-28545/09).

Anna Aktanaeva, Head of Practice at FBK Legal:

The court's position in this case is broadly consistent with established practice, but is instructive in terms of the standard for evaluating a bankruptcy officer's conduct and the limits of their discretion in managing a debtor's funds.

The cassation court effectively confirmed that a significant cash balance remaining in the account in the absence of payments to creditors may in itself be qualified as wrongful inaction, unless the officer proves economically justified reasons for such conduct.

The court applies a heightened standard of good faith and reasonableness, requiring the officer to take active steps to satisfy creditors' claims when liquidity is available. The burden of proving objective obstacles to making payments (e.g., disputes over the amount of claims, the need to reserve funds, court injunctions) lies with the officer. The absence of such evidence creates a risk of damages being awarded.

In terms of its impact on practice, this approach reinforces the trend towards personalisation of liability for bankruptcy officers and reduces the acceptable scope of 'procedural passivity'. The courts are effectively signalling that a passive model of conduct — even in the absence of direct procedural violations — will not be tolerated. When it comes to practice, the approach raises the bar for documenting management decisions: officers must not only make decisions but also record the economic rationale for retaining funds. Otherwise, any delays in payments may be retrospectively qualified as causing damage to creditors. Overall, this is not a groundbreaking ruling, but it enforces the approach to evaluating an officer's conduct and could be used by creditors as an additional argument in disputes over damages.