Debt recovery following an assignment requires evidence of the original obligation, transfer of the claim and unpaid balance. In Case A40-295867/2019, Moscow Commercial Court awarded Bridzh LLC RUB 5,021,581.79. The defendant submitted no objections, but the court examined the contracts, records and interest calculation.
⚖️ The obligations behind the claim
Bridzh LLC sued Iney Production Association CJSC. The court examined debts for repair and surrounding-area improvement work originally performed by PodryadTekhServis LLC, and unpaid purchase of five promissory notes from Finansinvest LLC. Acceptance records and a reconciliation statement supported the construction debt acknowledged by the customer.
The construction claim was assigned to Finansinvest in 2014, then to Bridzh under the agreement of 9 October 2017. The promissory-note purchase claim passed to Bridzh under a separate assignment of 12 October 2017. The court also described a securities-settlement agreement of 15 November 2017 providing for partial discharge and a balance of RUB 3,719,619.11.
The first page states an initial aggregate debt of RUB 130,719,619.11, but the listed components do not total that figure. This article does not correct the document or reconstruct a missing transaction. The result is stated using the amounts expressly awarded in the operative part.
⚖️ The award: principal, interest and fees
| Item | Amount | Recipient |
|---|---|---|
| Principal | RUB 3,719,619.11 | Bridzh LLC |
| Civil Code Article 395 interest | RUB 1,301,962.68 | Bridzh LLC |
| Total claim award | RUB 5,021,581.79 | Bridzh LLC |
| Court fee | RUB 48,108 | Federal budget |
The decision records interest for 5 August 2015 through 24 September 2019. The court stated that it had checked the calculation and found it arithmetically correct. A full daily and rate breakdown is absent from the PDF. The claimant had been granted deferred fee payment, so the fee was recovered from the defendant for the budget. This is the amount under the 2020 rules and claim value, rather than today’s fee for a new proceeding.
⚖️ Why no objections does not mean no evidence is needed
The defendant was notified but did not attend or submit a defence, objections or evidence before the hearing. The court referred to the procedural risk of inaction, Article 65 and Article 70(3.1) of the Commercial Procedure Code. It nevertheless examined the debt’s origin, assignments and calculation.
Article 65 requires proof of the circumstances relied on. Article 70(3.1) addresses undisputed circumstances while taking other evidence into account. Silence should not automatically be treated as acceptance of every legal conclusion or incorrect calculation. The court allowed this claim after assessing the combined materials. It is an ordinary commercial-court judgment, rather than a default judgment under the Civil Procedure Code.
⚖️ Preparing a new creditor’s claim
Civil Code Articles 382 and 384 help establish the transfer basis and scope of the right. An assignment agreement does not replace proof that the underlying debt exists. Connect the original contract, creditor’s performance, payment deadline, each assignment, subsequent payments and balance. Notification also matters: Article 382 addresses the risks of performance to the previous creditor before notice is received.
| Document group | What to establish |
|---|---|
| Original obligation | Basis, performance and payment deadline |
| Records and calculations | Work delivered, acknowledgement, payments and balance |
| All assignments | An uninterrupted chain and identification of the transferred claim |
| Notification | Who received notice of transfer and when |
| Interest | Applicable historical rules, periods, rates and balance changes |
| Procedural steps | Jurisdiction, applicable pre-action requirements, delivery of the claim and evidence |
A new interest calculation must use the rules applicable to each period and consider a contractual penalty and the restrictions on combining remedies under Article 395. The historical interest figure cannot be transferred to a different debt. See also preparing a demand before a commercial claim.
⚖️ Original decision and verification steps
Moscow Commercial Court, 12 February 2020, Case A40-295867/2019 — four-page PDF
- 1. Establish the debt. Check the original contract and performance.
- 2. Trace assignments. Verify each transfer and its scope.
- 3. Reconcile the balance. Review payments, agreements and interest.
- 4. Present evidence. Follow procedure regardless of the defendant’s activity.
⚖️ Frequently asked questions
Is the claim automatically allowed without a defence?
No. The claimant must provide its basis; the court assesses evidence and applicable law.
Is one assignment agreement enough?
The original claim, its scope, transfer and remaining balance after performance must be established.
Is RUB 5,021,581.79 all principal?
No. It comprises RUB 3,719,619.11 in principal and RUB 1,301,962.68 in interest.
Was the court fee awarded to the claimant?
The RUB 48,108 fee was awarded to the federal budget because the claimant had deferred payment.
Does the judgment prove the money has been received?
No. An award and performance differ. The attached decision contains no separate payment confirmation.
⚖️ Sources and related practice
Checked: 10 October 2026. All four original pages were read. Current legal guidance was checked against primary texts; historical figures and periods are preserved.
- Civil Code Article 382 and Article 384: transfer and scope
- Article 395: interest
- Commercial Procedure Code Article 65 and Article 70: proof and admitted circumstances
A later appeal by a non-party is covered separately in the Bank Yugra appeal article. For different debt evidence, see the receipt loan and alleged work-payment dispute.
This text is informational and is not legal advice. Document forms are used at your own risk and require review for the actual circumstances. A judgment does not guarantee actual recovery.