Here is the detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** The case concerns an appeal against a ruling refusing to take measures to secure the claim by way of attachment of funds belonging to the defendant (Rodynnyi Maetok LLC) within the framework of a dispute regarding the recovery of shared participation funds.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court emphasized that the purpose of securing a claim is to guarantee the actual enforcement of a future court decision; therefore, the court must assess whether there is a reasonable assumption that failure to take such measures would complicate or render such enforcement impossible.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that, for the application of an attachment, it is not necessary to prove the fact that the defendant has taken active steps to alienate property, as the requirement for such proof constitutes an excessively high standard that disrupts the balance of interests between the parties.
– The Court of Appeal rightly took into account the defendant’s financial status, in particular, prolonged loss-making operations and the discrepancy between the amount of the authorized capital and the amount of the claim, which creates a risk of the debtor lacking sufficient funds.
– The court drew attention to the bad faith conduct of the defendant, who recently alienated a portion of real estate, which, in conjunction with other data, indicates a real threat to the enforcement of the decision.
– Regarding the arguments concerning the “blocking of operations,” the court noted that the defendant failed to provide evidence of the disproportionality of the attachment, and its position is contradictory: it simultaneously claims to have funds available for the future enforcement of the decision while asserting that the attachment of these same funds would paralyze its operations.
– The court also recalled that procedural legislation provides for a mechanism to lift security measures if the defendant proves their groundlessness or disproportionality in the future.
– **Conclusion:** The court confirmed that the findings of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Court of Cassation in case No. 905/448/22 regarding the absence of an obligation to prove that the defendant has taken actions to evade the fulfillment of obligations are priority findings and must be applied as established practice.
3. **Court Ruling:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Rodynnyi Maetok LLC and upheld the resolution of the Court of Appeal, which imposed an attachment on the defendant’s funds.
