Abstract

The Supreme Court found in its judgement that the rent for a mortgaged property collected after the declaration of bankruptcy is to be included in the amount acquired for liquidation of that property (Art. 336.1 and Art. 345.1 of the Bankruptcy and Reorganisation Act of 28 February 2003). I have criticised such a Supreme Court position substantiating my opinion with an analysis of such notions of the bankruptcy and reorganisation law as bankruptcy estate funds, bankruptcy estate, liquidation of bankruptcy estate. I have also raise that in the light of Art. 335 of the Bankruptcy and Reorganisation Act amounts acquired from liquidation of bankruptcy estate should be differentiated from the amount acquired from operating or leasing an undertaking. Consequently, I stated that not all bankruptcy estate funds would originate from liquidation of bankruptcy estate. I also pointed out that the definition of bankruptcy estate funds is separate from the definition of bankruptcy estate, which allowed for a statement that the rent for a mortgaged property collected after the declaration of bankruptcy is included in bankruptcy estate funds, referred to in Art. 335 of the Bankruptcy and Reorganisation Act, and does not constitute bankruptcy estate. Otherwise than found by the Supreme Court, I believe that liquidation of a thing, e.g. real property, consists of selling it off, and in no case involves collection of debt from bankrupt’s debtors, as the Supreme Court sees it. Collection of debt is a method for liquidation of bankruptcy estate assets other than things. As a consequence of the above interpretation, I assumed that the rent for a mortgaged property collected after the declaration of bankruptcy is not included in the amount acquired from liquidation of that property and should be set aside for personal creditors asserting their claims in bankruptcy proceedings.