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.
PRESUMPTION OF CONTROL: EVIDENCE AGAINST FORMAL FEATURES
The creditor applied to the court to hold the defendants vicariously liable for the debtor's obligations (case no. A40-285086/18).
The court of first instance found that the ultimate beneficial owner of the company was a citizen, which is confirmed by the debtor's questionnaire, which states that he is the sole shareholder of the debtor. The stated facts led the court to the conclusion that at the date of the invalidated transactions, the citizen was the ultimate beneficial owner of not only the company, but also the debtor. In satisfying the application against the citizen, the court proceeded from the fact that he, along with other defendants, participated in the commission of the aforementioned invalid transactions of the debtor in order to withdraw the debtor's highly liquid assets to the detriment of creditors' property rights.
The Court of Appeal pointed out that the controlling nature of a citizen's activities in relation to the debtor is established through his participation in the authorized capital of the debtor's sole shareholder. At the same time, the court noted that the citizen was listed as a participant in the specified company for a certain period of time, and the existence of any evidence of the citizen's involvement in the debtor's activities after that period has not been established. Further, the court of appeal pointed out that the mere fact of participation in the authorized capital of the debtor's sole shareholder in the absence of any other acceptable and indisputable evidence of the exercise and exercise of control over the debtor's activities cannot be grounds for bringing to subsidiary responsibility.
The cassation court overturned the appeal ruling in part, leaving in force the ruling of the first instance. The Court noted that, according to the circumstances established by the court of first instance, transactions were made that led to the withdrawal of the debtor's assets in a significant amount, which led to further bankruptcy of the debtor.
The Court of Appeal did not take into account the fact that of the several contested transactions, two were made during the period when the citizen was in the status of a participant in the debtor's sole shareholder, and the amount of assets alienated amounted to a significant part of the debtor's assets.
Also, the court of appeal did not take into account that the conclusions of the court of first instance that the citizen is the ultimate beneficial owner of the company and the debtor are based on the debtor's questionnaire, which confirms that even after the formal withdrawal from the membership, the citizen continued to remain the beneficial owner of the debtor and exert further influence on his activities.
Taking into account the above, the conclusions of the court of appeal on the absence of a citizen's personal signature on the invalidated transactions could not serve as a basis for his release from subsidiary liability for the debtor's obligations.
Photo: Freepik
The court of first instance found that the ultimate beneficial owner of the company was a citizen, which is confirmed by the debtor's questionnaire, which states that he is the sole shareholder of the debtor. The stated facts led the court to the conclusion that at the date of the invalidated transactions, the citizen was the ultimate beneficial owner of not only the company, but also the debtor. In satisfying the application against the citizen, the court proceeded from the fact that he, along with other defendants, participated in the commission of the aforementioned invalid transactions of the debtor in order to withdraw the debtor's highly liquid assets to the detriment of creditors' property rights.
The Court of Appeal pointed out that the controlling nature of a citizen's activities in relation to the debtor is established through his participation in the authorized capital of the debtor's sole shareholder. At the same time, the court noted that the citizen was listed as a participant in the specified company for a certain period of time, and the existence of any evidence of the citizen's involvement in the debtor's activities after that period has not been established. Further, the court of appeal pointed out that the mere fact of participation in the authorized capital of the debtor's sole shareholder in the absence of any other acceptable and indisputable evidence of the exercise and exercise of control over the debtor's activities cannot be grounds for bringing to subsidiary responsibility.
The cassation court overturned the appeal ruling in part, leaving in force the ruling of the first instance. The Court noted that, according to the circumstances established by the court of first instance, transactions were made that led to the withdrawal of the debtor's assets in a significant amount, which led to further bankruptcy of the debtor.
The Court of Appeal did not take into account the fact that of the several contested transactions, two were made during the period when the citizen was in the status of a participant in the debtor's sole shareholder, and the amount of assets alienated amounted to a significant part of the debtor's assets.
Also, the court of appeal did not take into account that the conclusions of the court of first instance that the citizen is the ultimate beneficial owner of the company and the debtor are based on the debtor's questionnaire, which confirms that even after the formal withdrawal from the membership, the citizen continued to remain the beneficial owner of the debtor and exert further influence on his activities.
Taking into account the above, the conclusions of the court of appeal on the absence of a citizen's personal signature on the invalidated transactions could not serve as a basis for his release from subsidiary liability for the debtor's obligations.
Photo: Freepik
30.05.2025
