When initiating bankruptcy proceedings, the creditor must join the Debtor's RTC in order to satisfy its claims. When considering an application for inclusion in the RTC, the court may doubt the reality of the claim and ask for additional evidence to support the creditor's position.

Lawyers of the company "Sudokhod" considered the following positions of district courts, where the courts agreed with the position of the creditor, even if there were formal grounds for refusal.

1. The presence of a court order is the basis for including a claim in the RTC
According to Art. 69 of the Arbitration Procedure Code, a judicial act that has entered into force has prejudicial force, as a result, the court cannot verify the validity of such a judicial act. The procedural opponents in the dispute did not present evidence of the execution of the court order, therefore, the court included this claim in the RTC.

Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District dated 31.01.2019 N F10-5923/2017 in case N A62-6092/2017

2. The fact that the creditor has insufficient resources to fulfill the obligation to the debtor cannot refute the fact of fulfillment of the obligation
The debtor referred to the fact that the creditor could not physically fulfill its obligations due to the lack of the required number of employees on staff. The creditor provided acts of acceptance of services rendered, which the court considered a comprehensive argument.

Resolution of the West Siberian District Arbitration Court dated March 22, 2019 No. F04-6159/2018 in case No. A27-27756/2017

3. Affiliation of the creditor and the debtor is not enough to refuse inclusion in the RTK<
The creditor transferred funds to the debtor, which the latter used to settle with other creditors, while the original creditor is affiliated with the debtor. The court did not find a violation of the law and included the claim. It is important to note here that this case does not relate to the institution of subordination of claims (when loans are issued by participants or directors of the company).

Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District dated 07.03.2019 No. F02-116/2019 in case No. A19-938/2017

4. The absence of original documents for objective reasons is not grounds for refusing to include in the RTC
 

The basis for inclusion in the RTC was the contract of sale of bills of exchange. The fact of transfer of bills of exchange to the debtor (buyer) is confirmed by the act of their acceptance and transfer, the fact of full payment by the debtor has not been proven. The creditor did not have the bills themselves, since they were in the possession of the debtor, who subsequently transferred them to a third party for safekeeping and did not provide them to the court.

With regard to bills, it is worth noting that inclusion in the RTC on their basis is possible only if the legal relationship between the drawer and the first bill recipient is disclosed. This approach correlates with the principle of unconditionality of the bill, however, it allows revealing the reality of the relationship.

Resolution of the Volga-Vyatka District Arbitration Court dated 19.02.2019 No. F01-6932/2018 in case No. A79-2195/2015

The company “Sudohod” knows all the features and can always provide support in terms of familiarization with the materials – https://sudohod.info/familiarization/