Arbitration court of the Ural District indicated cases of bringing persons controlling debtor to subsidiary liability

The Arbitration Court of the Ural District published a review containing examples of real cases of bringing persons controlling debtor to liability due to the obligations of their companies.  Among other things, the document includes clarifications regarding the fulfillment of the obligation to transfer the documentation to bankruptcy trustee.

The panel of judges gives two examples that clearly demonstrate the proper and improper performance of duties by the head of debtor in the issue of the documents’ transfer.

In the first case, the head was brought to subsidiary liability by the court, because he did not take due diligence and care. The fact is that the director of the company sent the necessary documentation, but the first part of it was destroyed by the delivery service, and the second was damaged during the postage.

The sender's fault in the first case was that he incorrectly indicated his address, and when the courier failed to deliver the documents to the trustee, he tried to return them to the addressee, but did not find him. In such cases, the courier service can destroy the documentation, which was done.

When the second part of the documents was sent by mail, the CDs were damaged, because the former head of the company put them in a regular envelope without marking that there was a fragile cargo inside. Moreover, the documents sent along with the disks did not correspond to the names indicated in the inventory.

As a result, the person controlling debtor was held liable for the company's debts.

The second situation was related to the proper fulfillment of obligations. The court established that the former head of the debtor made several attempts to contact the manager and hand over the documents, but the latter did not come to receive them. Later the materials were received by the anti-crisis manager, but he nevertheless considered it possible to attract the head of debtor to the subsidiary liability, but his claim was rejected. The court considered that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence that the documents were missing and that he continued to keep the documents.

The full text of the review can be found here.