RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
30/01/2026
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
30 January 
1970 Same-sex marriages were legalized in Belgium.
1970 Gay marriages were legalized in Belgium
1970 The Shekel currency was introduced in Israel.
1970 Charles Richter proposed the Richter’s scale for measuring earthquakes magnitude.
1970 Charles Richter proposed the Richter’s scale for measuring earthquakes magnitude
1970 Charles Darwin's book on natural selection was published in Russia.
1970 Charles Darwin's book on natural selection was published in Russia
30 January
1970 Same-sex marriages were legalized in Belgium.
1970 Gay marriages were legalized in Belgium
1970 The Shekel currency was introduced in Israel.
1970 Charles Richter proposed the Richter’s scale for measuring earthquakes magnitude.
1970 Charles Richter proposed the Richter’s scale for measuring earthquakes magnitude
1970 Charles Darwin's book on natural selection was published in Russia.
1970 Charles Darwin's book on natural selection was published in Russia
SUBSIDY IN CASE OF BANKRUPTCY: BETWEEN PRESUMPTION AND PROOF
The manager appealed to the former managers and participants of the company to hold them vicariously liable for the debtor's obligations (case no. A40-13047/18).
The court of first instance refused to satisfy the application and proceeded from the fact that the managers did not prove the viciousness of the transactions made by the defendants, as well as the lack of sufficient evidence that the actions or omissions of these persons had become a necessary reason for the debtor's objective bankruptcy. Moreover, the court took into account that some of the defendants provided money to the debtor as loans, which indicates that there was no intention to harm the creditors' property rights.
The court of first instance also noted that the documents submitted did not confirm the withdrawal of the debtor's assets through affiliated companies or the commission of substantially unprofitable transactions that could lead to bankruptcy. In particular, the court referred to the fact that the debtor's financial indicators for the disputed periods do not show signs of insolvency until a certain point, and the presence of debts to specific creditors in itself cannot serve as a basis for concluding actual bankruptcy.
The appeal satisfied the application, having established that the defendants were controlling persons of the debtor and allowed a number of transactions aimed at withdrawing the debtor's assets through affiliated companies. These actions significantly worsened the debtor's financial situation and caused his bankruptcy.
In addition, the court of appeal took into account that the debtor's managers had failed to comply with the obligation to file for bankruptcy of the debtor within the time limit prescribed by law, resulting in an increase in accounts payable. Thus, after the occurrence of unfulfilled obligations, the debtor continued to conclude new contracts, but did not fulfill them, which led to an increase in the debt burden. According to the Court of Appeal, the defendants' arguments that they provided loans to the debtor and deposited funds into his accounts cannot be taken into account, since it was established that these payments were made at the expense of other companies associated with the defendants. Thus, in fact, the debts owed to the debtor have not been repaid.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration and pointed out that the lower courts had not considered the defendants' application for the expiration of the limitation period. The expiration of the limitation period is an independent ground for rejecting a claim.
The courts have not established specific reasons for the debtor's bankruptcy. At the same time, it was necessary to find out whether the actions or inaction of the defendants really became the necessary reason for bankruptcy, excluding other objective factors. The circumstances related to the possibility of bringing another defendant, who held the position of head during the last period of the debtor's activity, to subsidiary responsibility for non-fulfillment of the obligation to file a bankruptcy petition, have not been investigated.
In addition, the specifics of applying the presumption of bankruptcy have not been taken into account. The defendants pointed out that the amount of damage from the transactions imputed to them clearly did not correlate with the scale of the debtor's activities and the total amount of creditors' claims, but this argument was not evaluated by the court.
The District Court also drew attention to the fact that the conclusions of the courts are unfounded and premature, the courts did not consider the defendants' applications for the application of the statute of limitations, did not consider the manager's claim to hold [the defendant] vicariously liable for failure to comply with the obligation to file a bankruptcy petition with the debtor. The Court of Appeal, in holding the defendants vicariously liable for invalid transactions, did not take into account or investigate the circumstances to be established when considering this category of disputes, and did not evaluate the defendants' objections.
Photo: Freepik
The court of first instance refused to satisfy the application and proceeded from the fact that the managers did not prove the viciousness of the transactions made by the defendants, as well as the lack of sufficient evidence that the actions or omissions of these persons had become a necessary reason for the debtor's objective bankruptcy. Moreover, the court took into account that some of the defendants provided money to the debtor as loans, which indicates that there was no intention to harm the creditors' property rights.
The court of first instance also noted that the documents submitted did not confirm the withdrawal of the debtor's assets through affiliated companies or the commission of substantially unprofitable transactions that could lead to bankruptcy. In particular, the court referred to the fact that the debtor's financial indicators for the disputed periods do not show signs of insolvency until a certain point, and the presence of debts to specific creditors in itself cannot serve as a basis for concluding actual bankruptcy.
The appeal satisfied the application, having established that the defendants were controlling persons of the debtor and allowed a number of transactions aimed at withdrawing the debtor's assets through affiliated companies. These actions significantly worsened the debtor's financial situation and caused his bankruptcy.
In addition, the court of appeal took into account that the debtor's managers had failed to comply with the obligation to file for bankruptcy of the debtor within the time limit prescribed by law, resulting in an increase in accounts payable. Thus, after the occurrence of unfulfilled obligations, the debtor continued to conclude new contracts, but did not fulfill them, which led to an increase in the debt burden. According to the Court of Appeal, the defendants' arguments that they provided loans to the debtor and deposited funds into his accounts cannot be taken into account, since it was established that these payments were made at the expense of other companies associated with the defendants. Thus, in fact, the debts owed to the debtor have not been repaid.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration and pointed out that the lower courts had not considered the defendants' application for the expiration of the limitation period. The expiration of the limitation period is an independent ground for rejecting a claim.
The courts have not established specific reasons for the debtor's bankruptcy. At the same time, it was necessary to find out whether the actions or inaction of the defendants really became the necessary reason for bankruptcy, excluding other objective factors. The circumstances related to the possibility of bringing another defendant, who held the position of head during the last period of the debtor's activity, to subsidiary responsibility for non-fulfillment of the obligation to file a bankruptcy petition, have not been investigated.
In addition, the specifics of applying the presumption of bankruptcy have not been taken into account. The defendants pointed out that the amount of damage from the transactions imputed to them clearly did not correlate with the scale of the debtor's activities and the total amount of creditors' claims, but this argument was not evaluated by the court.
The District Court also drew attention to the fact that the conclusions of the courts are unfounded and premature, the courts did not consider the defendants' applications for the application of the statute of limitations, did not consider the manager's claim to hold [the defendant] vicariously liable for failure to comply with the obligation to file a bankruptcy petition with the debtor. The Court of Appeal, in holding the defendants vicariously liable for invalid transactions, did not take into account or investigate the circumstances to be established when considering this category of disputes, and did not evaluate the defendants' objections.
Photo: Freepik
28.01.2026
