RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
30/01/2026
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
30 January 
1970 Same-sex marriages were legalized in Belgium.
1970 Gay marriages were legalized in Belgium
1970 The Shekel currency was introduced in Israel.
1970 Charles Richter proposed the Richter’s scale for measuring earthquakes magnitude.
1970 Charles Richter proposed the Richter’s scale for measuring earthquakes magnitude
1970 Charles Darwin's book on natural selection was published in Russia.
1970 Charles Darwin's book on natural selection was published in Russia
30 January
1970 Same-sex marriages were legalized in Belgium.
1970 Gay marriages were legalized in Belgium
1970 The Shekel currency was introduced in Israel.
1970 Charles Richter proposed the Richter’s scale for measuring earthquakes magnitude.
1970 Charles Richter proposed the Richter’s scale for measuring earthquakes magnitude
1970 Charles Darwin's book on natural selection was published in Russia.
1970 Charles Darwin's book on natural selection was published in Russia
FROM INSOLVENCY TO OBJECTIVE BANKRUPTCY
The manager appealed to the court with a demand to hold the general director and the founders of the debtor vicariously liable (case no. A40-257957/22).
In rejecting the application, the courts of two instances proceeded from the fact that the manager had not proved the specific date of the debtor's objective bankruptcy, nor had he provided an estimate of the amount of obligations incurred after the expiration of the one-month period established by the bankruptcy law. The Court noted that the debtor's formal signs of bankruptcy and indebtedness to a specific creditor were not sufficient grounds for holding the debtor's managers responsible for failure to comply with the obligation to file for bankruptcy. It is erroneous to identify the debtor's insolvency with the non-payment of a specific debt to an individual creditor.
Regarding the transfer of documentation, the courts found that all available statutory documents, primary financial, accounting statements, seals and other documents were transferred to the manager according to the acceptance and transfer certificates signed bilaterally.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that the courts of the first and appellate instances had not checked and evaluated the arguments of the bankruptcy trustee on the commission of a number of transactions for the withdrawal of assets of the debtor, declared invalid in the framework of the present case. The court pointed out that it was necessary to establish which of the transactions contributed to the emergence of a crisis situation and the transition to the stage of objective bankruptcy, who was the ultimate beneficiary of the transactions, and how significant was the influence of each of the controlling persons on making significant business decisions.
The Court of Cassation recognized that the selective, incomplete position of the courts on the assessment of evidence and arguments of significant importance does not comply with the requirements of the Procedural Code. In this regard, judicial acts regarding the consideration of the issue of malicious transactions should be canceled and the dispute sent for a new hearing to the court of first instance.
Photo: Freepik
In rejecting the application, the courts of two instances proceeded from the fact that the manager had not proved the specific date of the debtor's objective bankruptcy, nor had he provided an estimate of the amount of obligations incurred after the expiration of the one-month period established by the bankruptcy law. The Court noted that the debtor's formal signs of bankruptcy and indebtedness to a specific creditor were not sufficient grounds for holding the debtor's managers responsible for failure to comply with the obligation to file for bankruptcy. It is erroneous to identify the debtor's insolvency with the non-payment of a specific debt to an individual creditor.
Regarding the transfer of documentation, the courts found that all available statutory documents, primary financial, accounting statements, seals and other documents were transferred to the manager according to the acceptance and transfer certificates signed bilaterally.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that the courts of the first and appellate instances had not checked and evaluated the arguments of the bankruptcy trustee on the commission of a number of transactions for the withdrawal of assets of the debtor, declared invalid in the framework of the present case. The court pointed out that it was necessary to establish which of the transactions contributed to the emergence of a crisis situation and the transition to the stage of objective bankruptcy, who was the ultimate beneficiary of the transactions, and how significant was the influence of each of the controlling persons on making significant business decisions.
The Court of Cassation recognized that the selective, incomplete position of the courts on the assessment of evidence and arguments of significant importance does not comply with the requirements of the Procedural Code. In this regard, judicial acts regarding the consideration of the issue of malicious transactions should be canceled and the dispute sent for a new hearing to the court of first instance.
Photo: Freepik
21.01.2026
