Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 2811/1998 AI generated

Court held that a third-party buyer of business assets is liable for restitution under bankruptcy law when funds were diverted to a third party.

Case Number KKO 2811/1998
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court ruled that company B was liable for restitution to company A's bankruptcy estate alongside the original debtor. Although B had purchased the business assets from A after A's insolvency, the court found that B had received funds diverted by a third party from A's creditors. Consequently, the court determined B must return the assets to the bankruptcy estate to satisfy A's creditors.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Laki 1093/1991 20 §; A third-party purchaser of business assets is liable for restitution to the bankruptcy estate if the assets were acquired using funds improperly diverted from the original debtor's creditors.

Keywords

AI generated
bankruptcy restitution third party liability business asset transfer insolvency law creditor rights

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Laki 1093/1991 20 §
AI generated
kko-other_1999_262
Supreme Court rules that a bankruptcy trustee must return excess payments made to a creditor in a resale case.
kko-precedent_1988_111
Supreme Court dismisses appeal when bankruptcy administrator accepts full payment from debtor, preventing funds from joining the bankruptcy estate.
kko-precedent_1989_27
Supreme Court allows debt transfer as substitute performance under Bankruptcy Act 46 § d.
kko-other_2013_694
Supreme Court dismissed creditor's appeal regarding right to drive seized funds and documents.
kko-precedent_1999_21
Supreme Court allows full recovery of debt from creditor under bankruptcy recovery law despite creditor's lack of knowledge of debtor's insolvency.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Yhtiö A oli myynyt läheisyhtiölleen B:lle liikeomaisuutensa. Saamallaan kauppahinnalla A oli maksanut velkojaan läheisyhtiölleen kommandiittiyhtiö C:lle, jonka vastuunalainen yhtiömies oli välittömästi siirtänyt rahat C:n tililtä B:n pankkitilille. B oli A:n jouduttua konkurssiin runsaan vuoden kuluttua myynyt koko liikeomaisuutensa läheisyhtiölleen D:lle.

Kysymys siitä, oliko D takaisinsaannista konkurssipesään annetun lain 20 §:n nojalla palautusvelvollisen B:n ohella vastuussa varojen palauttamisesta A:n konkurssipesälle.