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.
LACK OF ACCOUNTING STATEMENTS AS AN OBSTACLE TO ESTABLISHING SIGNS OF BANKRUPTCY
The manager applied to the court to hold two controlling persons vicariously liable for the debtor's obligations (case no. A56-82555/23).
The court of first instance refused to satisfy the application, concluding that the date of objective bankruptcy had not been determined by the bankruptcy trustee, as well as the new obligations that the company had incurred after debt collection from the company in favor of the creditor.
The appeal partially satisfied the application, pointing out that the debtor had signs of objective bankruptcy no later than the dates indicated by the administrator for each of the defendants.
The Court of Appeal concluded that after the specified dates, the debtor had obligations to pay mandatory payments. The Court of Appeal also recognized the amount of current expenses that constitute the remuneration of the arbitration administrator in the bankruptcy procedure as recoverable from the defendants.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance, noting that when determining whether there are signs of insolvency or insufficient property, one should proceed from the content of these concepts. Since the case file does not contain information on the company's accounting statements for the period from 2018 to 2023, the district court considers that the bankruptcy trustee did not provide evidence that the value of the company's assets on the specified date was less than the amount of monetary obligations and obligations to pay mandatory payments to the debtor.
Regarding the arrears in the payment of mandatory payments, the district court takes into account that the amount of the principal debt amounted to value-added tax arrears for the second quarter of 2019, which indirectly confirms the company's business activities after the specified date.
If the head of the debtor proves that the appearance of signs of insolvency or circumstances in itself did not indicate objective bankruptcy, and he faithfully hoped to overcome them within a reasonable time, such a head may be relieved of subsidiary responsibility for the period as long as the implementation of his plan was reasonable from the point of view of an ordinary head in similar circumstances.. It follows from the explanations of the defendants provided in the case file that the company carried out business activities until 2023, submitted accounting reports, paid taxes and tried to overcome the crisis situation.
The district Court considers justified the conclusion of the court of first instance that there is no evidence in the case file of the company's acceptance of additional debt obligations to new creditors from whom the actual facts were hidden, and, as a result, the occurrence of losses on the side of these new creditors, misled at the time of the debtor's performance.
Photo: Freepik
The court of first instance refused to satisfy the application, concluding that the date of objective bankruptcy had not been determined by the bankruptcy trustee, as well as the new obligations that the company had incurred after debt collection from the company in favor of the creditor.
The appeal partially satisfied the application, pointing out that the debtor had signs of objective bankruptcy no later than the dates indicated by the administrator for each of the defendants.
The Court of Appeal concluded that after the specified dates, the debtor had obligations to pay mandatory payments. The Court of Appeal also recognized the amount of current expenses that constitute the remuneration of the arbitration administrator in the bankruptcy procedure as recoverable from the defendants.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance, noting that when determining whether there are signs of insolvency or insufficient property, one should proceed from the content of these concepts. Since the case file does not contain information on the company's accounting statements for the period from 2018 to 2023, the district court considers that the bankruptcy trustee did not provide evidence that the value of the company's assets on the specified date was less than the amount of monetary obligations and obligations to pay mandatory payments to the debtor.
Regarding the arrears in the payment of mandatory payments, the district court takes into account that the amount of the principal debt amounted to value-added tax arrears for the second quarter of 2019, which indirectly confirms the company's business activities after the specified date.
If the head of the debtor proves that the appearance of signs of insolvency or circumstances in itself did not indicate objective bankruptcy, and he faithfully hoped to overcome them within a reasonable time, such a head may be relieved of subsidiary responsibility for the period as long as the implementation of his plan was reasonable from the point of view of an ordinary head in similar circumstances.. It follows from the explanations of the defendants provided in the case file that the company carried out business activities until 2023, submitted accounting reports, paid taxes and tried to overcome the crisis situation.
The district Court considers justified the conclusion of the court of first instance that there is no evidence in the case file of the company's acceptance of additional debt obligations to new creditors from whom the actual facts were hidden, and, as a result, the occurrence of losses on the side of these new creditors, misled at the time of the debtor's performance.
Photo: Freepik
13.10.2025
