Suspicion of difficulties with the execution of a judgment is sufficient for the enaction of interlocutory injunction
Konstantin Ivanchin, Partner of Inmar Legal Ltd, told The Attorney Newspaper of Russia that commercial courts often refuse to satisfy applications for interlocutory injunction in regard to property of individuals involved in secondary liability. That occurs when the applicant had not provided the court with sufficient evidence on the basis of which the possibility of assets` alienation can be concluded.
Konstantin Ivanchin noted that in this matter the Supreme Court pointed out the inadmissibility of formalism whilst undertaking interlocutory injunction. “Proving the bad faith of defendants is the cornerstone of modern administration of law”, – says Konstantin Ivanchin, – “there occurs the apparent difficulty for creditors to obtain direct evidences of the defendants` planned actions. That leads to the unhindered concealment of assets by defendants-in-bad-faith from the recovery of creditors’ claims. In this regard, the position of the Supreme Court on the obligation of defendants to independently prove their good faith themselves seems reasonable.”
According to Konstantin Ivanchin, the applying of such approach simplifies proving of defendants-in-bad-faith and helps to prevent the alienation of assets by individuals involved in secondary liability.
More details (in Russian only)