RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
15/12/2025
Monday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
15 December 
1970 The third power unit of the Chernobyl NPP was closed down - the Chernobyl NPP was completely decommissioned.
1970 the third power unit of the Chernobyl NPP was shut down - the Chernobyl NPP was completely decommissioned.
1970 The workers' council proclaimed the establishment of Soviet power in Vilnius.
1970 in Vilnius, the workers' council proclaimed the establishment of Soviet power.
1970 The first distinctive sign - a red star, was introduced in the Red Army.
15 December
1970 The third power unit of the Chernobyl NPP was closed down - the Chernobyl NPP was completely decommissioned.
1970 the third power unit of the Chernobyl NPP was shut down - the Chernobyl NPP was completely decommissioned.
1970 The workers' council proclaimed the establishment of Soviet power in Vilnius.
1970 in Vilnius, the workers' council proclaimed the establishment of Soviet power.
1970 The first distinctive sign - a red star, was introduced in the Red Army.
HOW THE WITHDRAWAL OF ASSETS THROUGH TRANSACTIONS WITH AFFILIATED COMPANIES CAN LEAD TO A SUBSIDY
The debtor's manager and the creditor requested that the former head of the debtor be held vicariously liable (case no. A40-36483/23).
In rejecting the application, the courts of two instances proceeded from the lack of evidence of a set of mandatory conditions, in the presence of which it is possible to involve the defendant in subsidiary liability for the obligations of the debtor. The courts found that it did not follow from the contents of the submitted documents that, on the expected date of the obligation to apply to the court for declaring the debtor bankrupt, the debtor had signs of insolvency and insufficient property. It has also been established that the date of the objective bankruptcy indicated by the applicant is erroneous.
With regard to the bankruptcy trustee's statement about the non-transfer of the debtor's documentation, the courts noted the lack of evidence indicating that the debtor's head had not transferred any documentation that he had, which made it difficult to carry out the procedures used in the bankruptcy case.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that the courts of both instances had not actually investigated the arguments of the bankruptcy trustee and the creditor regarding transactions with affiliated companies that could be the cause of the debtor's insolvency. It is stated that the courts did not take into account the existence of circumstances indicating that the transactions were concluded with the aim of harming the creditor's property rights. Also, the courts did not examine the arguments that the totality of the defendant's actions contributed to the emergence of a crisis situation and the transition to the stage of objective bankruptcy.
The Court of Cassation pointed out that the courts had not properly examined and evaluated the totality of the evidence presented. In this regard, a separate dispute is subject to re-examination. In the opinion of the cassation board, the courts of the two instances did not properly examine and evaluate the totality of evidence presented by the persons involved in the case, taking into account their arguments and objections to the dispute.
Photo: Freepik
In rejecting the application, the courts of two instances proceeded from the lack of evidence of a set of mandatory conditions, in the presence of which it is possible to involve the defendant in subsidiary liability for the obligations of the debtor. The courts found that it did not follow from the contents of the submitted documents that, on the expected date of the obligation to apply to the court for declaring the debtor bankrupt, the debtor had signs of insolvency and insufficient property. It has also been established that the date of the objective bankruptcy indicated by the applicant is erroneous.
With regard to the bankruptcy trustee's statement about the non-transfer of the debtor's documentation, the courts noted the lack of evidence indicating that the debtor's head had not transferred any documentation that he had, which made it difficult to carry out the procedures used in the bankruptcy case.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that the courts of both instances had not actually investigated the arguments of the bankruptcy trustee and the creditor regarding transactions with affiliated companies that could be the cause of the debtor's insolvency. It is stated that the courts did not take into account the existence of circumstances indicating that the transactions were concluded with the aim of harming the creditor's property rights. Also, the courts did not examine the arguments that the totality of the defendant's actions contributed to the emergence of a crisis situation and the transition to the stage of objective bankruptcy.
The Court of Cassation pointed out that the courts had not properly examined and evaluated the totality of the evidence presented. In this regard, a separate dispute is subject to re-examination. In the opinion of the cassation board, the courts of the two instances did not properly examine and evaluate the totality of evidence presented by the persons involved in the case, taking into account their arguments and objections to the dispute.
Photo: Freepik
11.12.2025
