RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
CONCEALMENT OF PAPERS OR LACK OF FOUNDATION?
The manager requested that the defendant be held vicariously liable for the debtor's obligations (case no. A40-242621/22).
The court of first instance partially satisfied the application and concluded that the defendant had committed unlawful conduct, which resulted in the failure to transfer the debtor's documentation and property to the bankruptcy trustee, and the failure to file an application for declaring the debtor bankrupt. In addition, the court noted the long-term gratuitous use of the land owned by the creditor, which led to the debtor's property benefits in the form of savings of funds payable for the use of the disputed land. This fact led to the impossibility of fully paying off the creditor's claims.
The court also noted that the debtor's debt to his sole creditor is unjustified enrichment that arose during the period as a result of the actual use of part of the land plot in the absence of contractual relations with the creditor. As a result of the defendant's unfair and unreasonable actions, which resulted in the use of the land plot in the absence of legitimate grounds, unjustified enrichment arose on the debtor's side, the amount of which was established by judicial acts that entered into force.
The appeal changed the definition, pointing out the lack of evidence that the defendant committed actions to withdraw the company's assets, which entailed negative consequences; at the same time, responsibility has already been incurred for the illegal use of part of the land plot by the company in the form of recovery of unjustified enrichment from the debtor.
The court of Appeal took into account the defendant's explanations that the specified debt to the creditor was partially repaid, as well as that the defendant committed actions aimed at obtaining ownership of real estate located on the specified land plot. By itself, non-payment of rent cannot be qualified as actions of the defendant aimed at causing significant harm to the debtor, resulting in his bankruptcy.
Failure to comply with the obligation to file for bankruptcy did not lead to an increase in accounts payable, as a condition for bringing persons controlling the debtor to subsidiary responsibility. However, the court of appeal agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance on the existence of grounds for holding the defendant vicariously liable for failure by the defendant to fully transfer the debtor's accounting and other documentation to the debtor's bankruptcy trustee.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, guided by the fact that the court of first instance should establish the existence (absence) of grounds for holding the defendant vicariously liable for non-transfer of the debtor's documents, assessing the defendant's arguments about the actual absence of the requested documents of the debtor (lease agreement), except for those that have already been transferred to the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor.
The courts have not established, and the judicial acts have not indicated, what specifically expresses the intent and dishonesty of the defendant's behavior aimed at concealing information about the debtor's property, which can be used to repay creditors' claims. They did not provide any reasons for concluding that there was a causal relationship between the defendant's behavior and the impossibility of forming the debtor's bankruptcy estate and satisfying the claims of his creditors (as grounds for bringing him to subsidiary responsibility).
The defendant provides arguments worthy of the attention and assessment of the courts that it was impossible to determine the amount of subsidiary liability, since exhaustive measures had not been taken in the bankruptcy procedure, namely, the collection of receivables had not been carried out.
The contested judicial acts do not assess the defendant's arguments, including how the absence of the debtor's documents (lease agreement) led to the impossibility of forming the debtor's bankruptcy estate, given the defendant's arguments that the payment for the actual use of the land was received by the debtor's bankruptcy estate during the bankruptcy procedure specifically for the purpose of repayment. the claims of the debtor's sole creditor. The courts have not fully investigated the circumstances relevant to the case, which could lead to a wrong decision.
Photo: Freepik
The court of first instance partially satisfied the application and concluded that the defendant had committed unlawful conduct, which resulted in the failure to transfer the debtor's documentation and property to the bankruptcy trustee, and the failure to file an application for declaring the debtor bankrupt. In addition, the court noted the long-term gratuitous use of the land owned by the creditor, which led to the debtor's property benefits in the form of savings of funds payable for the use of the disputed land. This fact led to the impossibility of fully paying off the creditor's claims.
The court also noted that the debtor's debt to his sole creditor is unjustified enrichment that arose during the period as a result of the actual use of part of the land plot in the absence of contractual relations with the creditor. As a result of the defendant's unfair and unreasonable actions, which resulted in the use of the land plot in the absence of legitimate grounds, unjustified enrichment arose on the debtor's side, the amount of which was established by judicial acts that entered into force.
The appeal changed the definition, pointing out the lack of evidence that the defendant committed actions to withdraw the company's assets, which entailed negative consequences; at the same time, responsibility has already been incurred for the illegal use of part of the land plot by the company in the form of recovery of unjustified enrichment from the debtor.
The court of Appeal took into account the defendant's explanations that the specified debt to the creditor was partially repaid, as well as that the defendant committed actions aimed at obtaining ownership of real estate located on the specified land plot. By itself, non-payment of rent cannot be qualified as actions of the defendant aimed at causing significant harm to the debtor, resulting in his bankruptcy.
Failure to comply with the obligation to file for bankruptcy did not lead to an increase in accounts payable, as a condition for bringing persons controlling the debtor to subsidiary responsibility. However, the court of appeal agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance on the existence of grounds for holding the defendant vicariously liable for failure by the defendant to fully transfer the debtor's accounting and other documentation to the debtor's bankruptcy trustee.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, guided by the fact that the court of first instance should establish the existence (absence) of grounds for holding the defendant vicariously liable for non-transfer of the debtor's documents, assessing the defendant's arguments about the actual absence of the requested documents of the debtor (lease agreement), except for those that have already been transferred to the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor.
The courts have not established, and the judicial acts have not indicated, what specifically expresses the intent and dishonesty of the defendant's behavior aimed at concealing information about the debtor's property, which can be used to repay creditors' claims. They did not provide any reasons for concluding that there was a causal relationship between the defendant's behavior and the impossibility of forming the debtor's bankruptcy estate and satisfying the claims of his creditors (as grounds for bringing him to subsidiary responsibility).
The defendant provides arguments worthy of the attention and assessment of the courts that it was impossible to determine the amount of subsidiary liability, since exhaustive measures had not been taken in the bankruptcy procedure, namely, the collection of receivables had not been carried out.
The contested judicial acts do not assess the defendant's arguments, including how the absence of the debtor's documents (lease agreement) led to the impossibility of forming the debtor's bankruptcy estate, given the defendant's arguments that the payment for the actual use of the land was received by the debtor's bankruptcy estate during the bankruptcy procedure specifically for the purpose of repayment. the claims of the debtor's sole creditor. The courts have not fully investigated the circumstances relevant to the case, which could lead to a wrong decision.
Photo: Freepik
12.11.2025
