THE OWNER OF THE BANKRUPT "REDSTONE" WAS RELEASED FROM THE SUBSIDY

THE OWNER OF THE BANKRUPT "REDSTONE" WAS RELEASED FROM THE SUBSIDY

THE OWNER OF THE BANKRUPT "REDSTONE" WAS RELEASED FROM THE SUBSIDY
The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District, which considered the complaint of the founder of the Redstone company in July, partially canceled the judicial acts of lower instances regarding his subsidiary liability. The case (no. A40-76827/2021) has been sent for reconsideration.


The Redstone company was declared insolvent in February 2022. Bankruptcy trustee Alexander Polyakov, in the process of bankruptcy proceedings, decided to apply to arbitration, demanding that the founder of the firm Suvorov and its CEO Khabarov be involved in the subsidiary. Polyakov's application was satisfied by the arbitration courts of two instances.

After that, both appealed to the cassation with complaints. The court found that Suvorov combined his status as the sole founder with the position of CEO from July 24, 2014 to December 16, 2015. After that, Khabarov was the head of the company for many years.

The courts linked the occurrence of subsidiary liability with several transactions concluded in June and August 2017. In particular, the firm signed a contract with Novopokrovsky Bank, opening credit lines for 67.3 million and 187.7 million rubles.

Polyakov indicated in his petition that the defendants had to apply to the court for bankruptcy no later than the beginning of 2018. However, no evidence of the appearance of new financial obligations after this deadline was submitted to the court. The cassation drew attention to this.

It turned out that in April 2019, the company paid more than 57.3 million rubles as an advance payment for transport services to another legal entity without concluding a contract, without having any economic benefit from such a transaction (case no. A40-172932/2018). Thus, the cassation recognized that the head of the organization Khabarov was punished by the subsidy fairly, which could not be said about the founder Suvorov.

The district court drew attention to the fact that during this period Suvorov remained only the founder of this company. The courts of lower instances did not consider the issue of his involvement in the work of the company. There was no indication that the transactions were made with his participation or on his instructions in the case. He was also not a beneficiary of them. And therefore should not bear subsidiary responsibility.


02.08.2023