Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 904/5450/25:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the court’s approval of the preventive restructuring plan of PJSC “Dniprovskyi Metallurgical Plant” in the presence of signs of abuse of procedural rights by the debtor and the parallel existence of another insolvency resolution procedure.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial oversight in insolvency cases cannot be limited solely to a formal verification of deadlines or the availability of creditor votes. The Court pointed out that the preventive restructuring procedure is an “early warning” tool for the threat of insolvency, rather than a means of endless evasion of obligations through continuous protection under a moratorium. An important argument was that the lower courts ignored the duty to verify the accuracy of the information in the plan (pursuant to Clause 6, Part 1, Article 33-22 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures), which is mandatory and does not depend on whether a creditor filed an objection in a timely manner. The Supreme Court stressed that the debtor’s “transit” from one procedure (pre-trial rehabilitation) to another (preventive restructuring) “day-to-day” may indicate an attempt to circumvent legislative restrictions on the re-initiation of procedures. Consequently, the courts should have systematically evaluated the good faith of the debtor’s conduct, as it has been avoiding the satisfaction of debts through judicial procedures for five consecutive years. The Supreme Court concluded that the formalistic approach of the courts to procedural deadlines led to a defect in judicial oversight and an incomplete clarification of the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, remanding the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region.
****
In this decision, the Court departs from its previous position established in other Supreme Court rulings regarding the limitation of judicial oversight exclusively to formal procedural deadlines, emphasizing the need to prioritize a teleological (purposive) interpretation of the norms of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures and the mandatory nature of proactive judicial oversight over the accuracy of information in a restructuring plan, regardless of the procedural activity of creditors.
