RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
03/03/2026
Tuesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
3 March 
1933 Hitler proclaimed the formation of the Third Reich.
1933 Hitler proclaimed the formation of the Third Reich
1878 The principality of Great Bulgaria was formed as part of the Ottoman Empire.
1878 The Principality of Great Bulgaria was formed as part of the Ottoman Empire
1613 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich was elected to reign and became the first tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1613 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich was elected to rule and became the first Tsar of the Romanov dynasty
3 March
1933 Hitler proclaimed the formation of the Third Reich.
1933 Hitler proclaimed the formation of the Third Reich
1878 The principality of Great Bulgaria was formed as part of the Ottoman Empire.
1878 The Principality of Great Bulgaria was formed as part of the Ottoman Empire
1613 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich was elected to reign and became the first tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1613 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich was elected to rule and became the first Tsar of the Romanov dynasty
ABOUT ACTUAL CONTROL AND FICTITIOUS LEADERSHIP
The manager appealed to the court demanding that the controlling persons be held vicariously liable (case no. A09-5905/19).
The Court of First instance concluded that there were legal grounds for satisfying the stated claims against each of the defendants. The court proceeded from the actual control over the activities of the debtor by the co-defendant, the nominal status of the official head and founder of the debtor of the defendant.
Having established the circumstances of the absence of assets (oil), the presence of which is reflected in the debtor's financial statements, critically assessing the defendants' arguments about draining oil into the soil due to the expired shelf life, due to the lack of any documentary evidence, taking into account the arguments of the bankruptcy trustee that he was not provided with all the documentation of the debtor, the court of the first The authorities jointly brought the defendants to subsidiary responsibility.
The appeal overturned the ruling in part, recognizing as proven the existence of grounds for bringing only the defendant to subsidiary liability for the obligations of the debtor, due to evasion from fulfilling the obligation to transfer property and all documentation of the debtor to the manager, as well as distortion of accounting documents. The court of appeal considered the existence of grounds for holding the defendant vicariously liable for failure to file a bankruptcy petition to be unproven, recognizing the conclusions of the court of first instance in this part as unfounded.
Disagreeing with the conclusions of the court of first instance that the co-respondent was the actual head of the debtor and refusing to hold him vicariously liable, the arbitration court of Appeal proceeded from the fact that there was no evidence of actions indicating the defendant's involvement in the debtor's management process, as well as his actions that determined the economic fate of the enterprise, decision-making regarding the company's activities.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance, pointing out that the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that there were no grounds for bringing the co-defendant to subsidiary responsibility did not correspond to the factual circumstances and legal norms governing the disputed relations correctly established by the court of first instance in the dispute. The conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instance on the existence of grounds for bringing the defendant to subsidiary liability were made with the correct application of the law and correspond to the actual circumstances. Since the defendants' actions went beyond the normal course of business and are not typical of bona fide participants in civil turnover, the combined actions of the defendants led to the inability to repay the claims of external creditors, including due to the debtor's lost assets, which were falsely reported in the financial statements, as well as due to the failure to transfer documents on the debtor's receivables. to the bankruptcy trustee, the court reasonably established the existence of grounds for bringing the defendants to subsidiary liability.
Photo: Freepik
The Court of First instance concluded that there were legal grounds for satisfying the stated claims against each of the defendants. The court proceeded from the actual control over the activities of the debtor by the co-defendant, the nominal status of the official head and founder of the debtor of the defendant.
Having established the circumstances of the absence of assets (oil), the presence of which is reflected in the debtor's financial statements, critically assessing the defendants' arguments about draining oil into the soil due to the expired shelf life, due to the lack of any documentary evidence, taking into account the arguments of the bankruptcy trustee that he was not provided with all the documentation of the debtor, the court of the first The authorities jointly brought the defendants to subsidiary responsibility.
The appeal overturned the ruling in part, recognizing as proven the existence of grounds for bringing only the defendant to subsidiary liability for the obligations of the debtor, due to evasion from fulfilling the obligation to transfer property and all documentation of the debtor to the manager, as well as distortion of accounting documents. The court of appeal considered the existence of grounds for holding the defendant vicariously liable for failure to file a bankruptcy petition to be unproven, recognizing the conclusions of the court of first instance in this part as unfounded.
Disagreeing with the conclusions of the court of first instance that the co-respondent was the actual head of the debtor and refusing to hold him vicariously liable, the arbitration court of Appeal proceeded from the fact that there was no evidence of actions indicating the defendant's involvement in the debtor's management process, as well as his actions that determined the economic fate of the enterprise, decision-making regarding the company's activities.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance, pointing out that the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that there were no grounds for bringing the co-defendant to subsidiary responsibility did not correspond to the factual circumstances and legal norms governing the disputed relations correctly established by the court of first instance in the dispute. The conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instance on the existence of grounds for bringing the defendant to subsidiary liability were made with the correct application of the law and correspond to the actual circumstances. Since the defendants' actions went beyond the normal course of business and are not typical of bona fide participants in civil turnover, the combined actions of the defendants led to the inability to repay the claims of external creditors, including due to the debtor's lost assets, which were falsely reported in the financial statements, as well as due to the failure to transfer documents on the debtor's receivables. to the bankruptcy trustee, the court reasonably established the existence of grounds for bringing the defendants to subsidiary liability.
Photo: Freepik
15.01.2026
