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.
SUBSIDY AND BUSINESS RISK IN THE HOUSING AND COMMUNAL SERVICES SECTOR
The creditor applied to the court to hold the defendants vicariously liable for the debtor's obligations (case no. A10-701/21).
The creditor applied to the court for bringing the defendants to subsidiary liability. The court of first instance concluded that there were grounds for bringing the defendants to subsidiary liability, collecting jointly and severally from the defendants the amount of subsidiary liability.
The Court of appeal, overturning the ruling of the court of first instance and refusing to satisfy the stated claims, concluded that there were no grounds for bringing the defendants to subsidiary liability.
The debtor is a housing and communal services company that implements socially significant functions for the region, provides public utilities, and provides maintenance and maintenance of the common property of apartment buildings. The activities of such organizations, as a rule, are unprofitable, which is mainly due to late payment and non-payment of supplied utility resources by the population; the insolvency of the population, low payment discipline of the population; deliberately unreasonable tariffs that do not cover the costs of housing and communal services enterprises.
The co-respondent confirmed the improvement of the financial condition due to the actions of the defendants: an increase in revenue compared to the previous period, other income, a reduction in loss and an improvement in the overall financial result. After analyzing and evaluating the provisions of the rehabilitation plan, as well as the measures taken as part of its implementation, the Court of Appeal stated that these measures indicate the intention to restructure the enterprise.
In the absence of evidence reliably testifying to the commission of transactions imputed to the defendants specifically for the purpose of harming creditors, the Court of Appeal came to the consistent conclusion that there were no grounds for bringing the defendants to the established subsidiary liability.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in part, pointing out that the court of appeal had not verified the company's argument regarding unjustified enrichment in the form of unreasonably received funds for a certain period included in the register of creditors' claims.
The creditor insisted that the debtor, despite concluding direct contracts with the owners and users of residential premises, had unlawfully issued utility bills to the specified persons during a certain period, while receiving funds to pay for the specified utilities, which, according to the company, is confirmed by documents.
These arguments were also stated in the court of first instance. At the same time, the court of first instance satisfied the claims in full without allocating this amount, and the court of appeal, on the contrary, did not see any grounds for involvement, refusing to fully satisfy the stated claims without a proper assessment of the evidence provided by the applicant in support of arguments about the illegal behavior of controlling persons in the above episode, and without taking into account possible retraining of the applicant's requirements.
Photo: Freepik Obligations of the debtor (case no. A10-701/21).
The creditor applied to the court for bringing the defendants to subsidiary liability. The court of first instance concluded that there were grounds for bringing the defendants to subsidiary liability, collecting jointly and severally from the defendants the amount of subsidiary liability.
The Court of appeal, overturning the ruling of the court of first instance and refusing to satisfy the stated claims, concluded that there were no grounds for bringing the defendants to subsidiary liability.
The debtor is a housing and communal services company that implements socially significant functions for the region, provides public utilities, and provides maintenance and maintenance of the common property of apartment buildings. The activities of such organizations, as a rule, are unprofitable, which is mainly due to late payment and non-payment of supplied utility resources by the population; the insolvency of the population, low payment discipline of the population; deliberately unreasonable tariffs that do not cover the costs of housing and communal services enterprises.
The co-respondent confirmed the improvement of the financial condition due to the actions of the defendants: an increase in revenue compared to the previous period, other income, a reduction in loss and an improvement in the overall financial result. After analyzing and evaluating the provisions of the rehabilitation plan, as well as the measures taken as part of its implementation, the Court of Appeal stated that these measures indicate the intention to restructure the enterprise.
In the absence of evidence reliably testifying to the commission of transactions imputed to the defendants specifically for the purpose of harming creditors, the Court of Appeal came to the consistent conclusion that there were no grounds for bringing the defendants to the established subsidiary liability.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in part, pointing out that the court of appeal had not verified the company's argument regarding unjustified enrichment in the form of unreasonably received funds for a certain period included in the register of creditors' claims.
The creditor insisted that the debtor, despite concluding direct contracts with the owners and users of residential premises, had unlawfully issued utility bills to the specified persons during a certain period, while receiving funds to pay for the specified utilities, which, according to the company, is confirmed by documents.
These arguments were also stated in the court of first instance. At the same time, the court of first instance satisfied the claims in full without allocating this amount, and the court of appeal, on the contrary, did not see any grounds for involvement, refusing to fully satisfy the stated claims without a proper assessment of the evidence provided by the applicant in support of arguments about the illegal behavior of controlling persons in the above episode, and without taking into account possible retraining of the applicant's requirements.
Photo: Freepik Obligations of the debtor (case no. A10-701/21).
06.10.2025
