Problems Arising in Judicial Practice Due to the Absence of the Decision by the First Creditors’ Meeting on Bankruptcy Procedure

Introduction: the decision of the first creditors’ meeting aimed at determining the subsequent bankruptcy procedure is often not taken for objective reasons, or is found to be not complying with the requirements, whereas the monitoring procedure period has expired. The consequences of such a situation, provided for by law, generate a number of negative effects, including opposing legal positions in judicial practice and a reduction in the number of introduced rehabilitation procedures in bankruptcy. Purpose: to form an idea of the problems arising from the absence of the decision by the first creditors’ meeting, based on analyses of judicial practice materials, scientific and statistical sources, and foreign experience. Methods: empirical methods of comparison, description; theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic; specific scientific methods: legal-dogmatic, comparative-legal, interpretation of legal norms. Results: the conducted research has shown that the ransfer of the right to choose bankruptcy procedure to a commercial court unreasonably deprives creditors of the fundamental right granted to them by law, prevents the initiation of financial rehabilitation procedures and the conclusion of a settlement agreement, strengthens the liquidation-riented position of bankruptcy law in general. Conclusions: in order to solve these problems, a set of measures has been proposed aiming to legislatively formalize the possibility and grounds for postponing the first creditors’ meeting beyond the deadline, to ensure that the court decides on the selection of bankruptcy procedure based on reliable information, to expand the grounds for introducing rehabilitation procedures when the court determines bankruptcy procedure at its own discretion, to avoid the delays in the implementation of the procedure