RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
19/02/2026
Thursday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
19 February 
1970 The Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, announced his retirement from the politics
1970 The Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, announced his retirement from the politics
1970 The oldest Korea's bank, Shinhan Bank, was opened
1970 The oldest Korea's bank, Shinhan Bank, was opened
1970 The French mathematician and astronomer Urbain Leverrier presented the first world's weather forecast
1970 The French mathematician and astronomer Urbain Leverrier presented the first world's weather forecast
19 February
1970 The Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, announced his retirement from the politics
1970 The Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, announced his retirement from the politics
1970 The oldest Korea's bank, Shinhan Bank, was opened
1970 The oldest Korea's bank, Shinhan Bank, was opened
1970 The French mathematician and astronomer Urbain Leverrier presented the first world's weather forecast
1970 The French mathematician and astronomer Urbain Leverrier presented the first world's weather forecast
"LOSS CENTER" VS. REAL CALCULATIONS
The manager appealed to the court demanding that the controlling persons be held vicariously liable (case no. A76-43794/19).
The courts of the two instances partially satisfied the application, based on the fact that a scheme had developed between the organizations in which a "loss center" was formed on the debtor's side, and a "profit center" on the company's side, which led to the emergence of accounts payable from the debtor. It was also established that there were significant financial transactions between the organizations, in particular, after receiving funds from a third party, a significant part was transferred to the company's account.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in part, pointing out that, contrary to the conclusions of the courts and the opinion of the manager, for the purpose of verifying the arguments on the creation of the business scheme "profit center - loss center", it is impossible to correctly correlate the total amounts fulfilled by the debtor and the obligations fulfilled by the company for the entire period of their business activities.
In such cases, it is necessary to establish a causal relationship between the actions of participants and the expected consequences in the form of asset redistribution, the real economic goals and motives underlying the transactions, the presence or absence of intent to harm creditors or other persons, the compliance of transactions with generally accepted business principles and criteria of reasonableness and integrity, the ratio of the volume of counter obligations. and the actual payments, taking into account not only the total amount, but also the terms, conditions and nature of the calculations.
To confirm the existence of the "profit center – loss center" scheme, it is necessary to prove not just the fact that one participant has debts and another has assets, but specifically the purposeful nature of actions to redistribute assets in order to harm creditors.
During the consideration of this dispute, the citizen consistently argued that, according to the debtor's account statements, during the same period, the company, which, according to the manager, is a "profit center", in addition to direct payments to the debtor, made transfers to third parties for the debtor's obligations, and therefore the courts did not have the grounds for forming conclusions about the gratuitous receipt of goods by the company and the extraction of unjustified property benefits at the expense of the debtor.
At the same time, the courts did not refute the defendant's arguments that such a business model was due to the existence of economic ties between interrelated persons, and the delivery of goods by the debtor to the company did not pursue a malicious purpose, but was an industrial necessity in carrying out a single activity. All transactions were carried out in connection with the common economic interests of the organizations belonging to the same group, and were aimed at business development, proportional distribution of default risk and stabilization of the financial and economic activities of the group.
Photo: Freepik
The courts of the two instances partially satisfied the application, based on the fact that a scheme had developed between the organizations in which a "loss center" was formed on the debtor's side, and a "profit center" on the company's side, which led to the emergence of accounts payable from the debtor. It was also established that there were significant financial transactions between the organizations, in particular, after receiving funds from a third party, a significant part was transferred to the company's account.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in part, pointing out that, contrary to the conclusions of the courts and the opinion of the manager, for the purpose of verifying the arguments on the creation of the business scheme "profit center - loss center", it is impossible to correctly correlate the total amounts fulfilled by the debtor and the obligations fulfilled by the company for the entire period of their business activities.
In such cases, it is necessary to establish a causal relationship between the actions of participants and the expected consequences in the form of asset redistribution, the real economic goals and motives underlying the transactions, the presence or absence of intent to harm creditors or other persons, the compliance of transactions with generally accepted business principles and criteria of reasonableness and integrity, the ratio of the volume of counter obligations. and the actual payments, taking into account not only the total amount, but also the terms, conditions and nature of the calculations.
To confirm the existence of the "profit center – loss center" scheme, it is necessary to prove not just the fact that one participant has debts and another has assets, but specifically the purposeful nature of actions to redistribute assets in order to harm creditors.
During the consideration of this dispute, the citizen consistently argued that, according to the debtor's account statements, during the same period, the company, which, according to the manager, is a "profit center", in addition to direct payments to the debtor, made transfers to third parties for the debtor's obligations, and therefore the courts did not have the grounds for forming conclusions about the gratuitous receipt of goods by the company and the extraction of unjustified property benefits at the expense of the debtor.
At the same time, the courts did not refute the defendant's arguments that such a business model was due to the existence of economic ties between interrelated persons, and the delivery of goods by the debtor to the company did not pursue a malicious purpose, but was an industrial necessity in carrying out a single activity. All transactions were carried out in connection with the common economic interests of the organizations belonging to the same group, and were aimed at business development, proportional distribution of default risk and stabilization of the financial and economic activities of the group.
Photo: Freepik
17.02.2026
