RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
10/01/2026
Saturday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
10 January 
2010 A new type of preventive measure – the house arrest was introduced in Russia.
2010 A new type of preventive measure – the house arrest, was introduced in Russia
1966 India and Pakistan signed a declaration to the end of the war.
1966 India and Pakistan signed a declaration to the end of the war
1863 The world's first subway line with a length of 3.6 km was launched in London.
1863 The world's first subway line with a length of 3.6 km was launched in London
10 January
2010 A new type of preventive measure – the house arrest was introduced in Russia.
2010 A new type of preventive measure – the house arrest, was introduced in Russia
1966 India and Pakistan signed a declaration to the end of the war.
1966 India and Pakistan signed a declaration to the end of the war
1863 The world's first subway line with a length of 3.6 km was launched in London.
1863 The world's first subway line with a length of 3.6 km was launched in London
SUBSIDIARY WITH INDIRECT PARTICIPATION IN CONSTRUCTION CONTROL
The manager appealed to the court demanding that the former head of the debtor be held vicariously liable (case no. A49-9008/21).
The courts of two instances partially satisfied the application, pointing out that the actions of the former head of the company caused losses to the debtor, since the debtor's failure to fulfill a public legal obligation to transfer the amount of value-added tax to the budget led to an increase in the debtor's obligations by the amount of penalties and fines for non-payment of tax. As a result, the company had to incur additional costs to satisfy creditors' claims.
Regarding the debtor's transactions that caused significant damage to creditors' property rights, the court noted that the objective reason for bankruptcy was the circumstances related to the construction of the facility for the institution. The completed transactions do not exceed 25% of the book value of the company's assets, so they cannot be considered significant and significantly unprofitable.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in part and noted that the court of appeal had correctly begun to analyze the existence of grounds for bringing the former head to subsidiary responsibility due to the company's performance of substandard work with unusable results.
However, the Court of appeal incorrectly distributed the burden of proof on this issue.
The burden of proving that the defendant acted in accordance with the usual conditions of civil turnover during construction, within the limits of business risk, lies with the defendant, and not with the plaintiff or creditors.
The controlling person is liable to subsidiary liability not only in case of intent, but also in case of gross negligence.
A subsidiary defendant is not subject to subsidiary liability if he has complied with the minimum requirements of prudence as a controlling person.
Therefore, the courts in this case should have asked the defendant to prove that they had taken at least minimal precautions to control the quality of building materials and construction technology.
The court of appeal's references to the fact that construction control over the construction site was carried out by another company were made without establishing who exactly signed the contract with this organization (the customer or the general contractor), and also without taking into account that the scope of construction control of the customer and the person carrying out the construction is different.
Photo: Freepik
The courts of two instances partially satisfied the application, pointing out that the actions of the former head of the company caused losses to the debtor, since the debtor's failure to fulfill a public legal obligation to transfer the amount of value-added tax to the budget led to an increase in the debtor's obligations by the amount of penalties and fines for non-payment of tax. As a result, the company had to incur additional costs to satisfy creditors' claims.
Regarding the debtor's transactions that caused significant damage to creditors' property rights, the court noted that the objective reason for bankruptcy was the circumstances related to the construction of the facility for the institution. The completed transactions do not exceed 25% of the book value of the company's assets, so they cannot be considered significant and significantly unprofitable.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in part and noted that the court of appeal had correctly begun to analyze the existence of grounds for bringing the former head to subsidiary responsibility due to the company's performance of substandard work with unusable results.
However, the Court of appeal incorrectly distributed the burden of proof on this issue.
The burden of proving that the defendant acted in accordance with the usual conditions of civil turnover during construction, within the limits of business risk, lies with the defendant, and not with the plaintiff or creditors.
The controlling person is liable to subsidiary liability not only in case of intent, but also in case of gross negligence.
A subsidiary defendant is not subject to subsidiary liability if he has complied with the minimum requirements of prudence as a controlling person.
Therefore, the courts in this case should have asked the defendant to prove that they had taken at least minimal precautions to control the quality of building materials and construction technology.
The court of appeal's references to the fact that construction control over the construction site was carried out by another company were made without establishing who exactly signed the contract with this organization (the customer or the general contractor), and also without taking into account that the scope of construction control of the customer and the person carrying out the construction is different.
Photo: Freepik
25.12.2025
