EX-MANAGERS OF TMK FROM PRIMORYE WERE JOINTLY PUNISHED BY 65.6 MILLION FOR LOSSES

On March 13, the appeal issued a ruling on the bankruptcy case of TMK (Pacific Bridge Construction Company). The company was declared insolvent in 2015. Now, the arbitration has jointly recovered 65,687,880.70 rubles from its former KU (bankruptcy managers) as losses inflicted on the organization due to missed deadlines (No. A51-31981/2014).

Initially, Dmitry Lizunov was approved by the KU. In the spring of 2016, his duties were terminated. From May 2016 to October 2018, the functions of the KU were performed by Igor Letash.

Vladimir Isaev, who replaced two of his predecessors in the role of KU, applied to arbitration in 2020 with a petition to recover damages from them. The reason was the missed deadline for them to challenge the pledge agreements.

It was about the debt of RASCO (CJSC) in the amount of 288.5 million. The debts were repaid by TMK, which acted as a guarantor. At the same time, the company received a promissory note for this amount from RASCO. Later, the promissory note was sold to Vostoktrast through mutual settlement.

RASCO was in no hurry to pay for the security, and subsequently the organization was declared bankrupt. TMK's transactions with Vostoktrast were annulled by a court decision that entered into force on November 30, 2016. This meant that within two months (until January 30, 2017), TMK had the opportunity to apply with financial requirements to RASCO, but did not do so.

Letash, who missed the deadline for the inclusion of TMK's financial claims in the RASCO register, was ordered by the Primorsky arbitration court to pay 42.8 million rubles for losses.

Isaev demanded that the former managers jointly pay 65.6 million rubles as compensation for the losses incurred. The manager referred to the failure of his predecessors to take reasonable measures that comply with the rules of Article 142 of the Federal Law "On Insolvency".

The first instance refused Isaev. The judge considered that he had not provided the necessary evidence on his petition to challenge the collateral transactions. The appeal did not agree with this decision, recognizing the arguments as well-founded. It remains to wait for the publication of the reasoned conclusion of the appeal, which has not yet been made public.

Photo: Freepik