We know everything about bankruptcy
01/01/2025
Wednesday
1 January 
2021 Gregorian calendar New Year.
2020 Gregorian calendar New Year
1998 Denomination was held in Russia - a copeck was put into circulation again.
1998 Denomination was held in Russia - a penny was put into circulation again
1935 Surnames were introduced instead of titles in Turkey.
1935 Surnames were introduced instead of titles in Turkey in 1935
Supreme Court of Russia did not give a permission for re-consideration of the application for bringing to subsidiary liability
The Economic Board considered the case based on the complaint of one of the debtor’s controlling persons, who remained dissatisfied with the judicial acts issued by the appeal instance and the district court. The lower instances did not see the identity in the claims for bringing the persons controlling debtor to subsidiary liability, given that the courts had already considered a similar claim earlier.
In the framework of the first case, the tax authority demanded that three persons controlling the debtor should be brought to subsidiary liability.
The reasons for this were arguments about the unlawful presentation of the VAT amount for deduction, as well as money transfers to the accounts of a third party.
As a result, the claim was partially satisfied.
Thereafter, the tax authority made a decision to make an attempt to re-initiate the case, citing the same grounds and circumstances.
In the court of first instance, the proceedings were terminated with reference to the identity of two applications. However, the appeal and the district saw no problems and sent the dispute for reconsideration. The end to the case was put by the Supreme Court of Russia, which pointed out the inadmissibility of a secondary consideration of an application with identical claims.
The Supreme Court of Russia noted that the position taken by the court of appeal and the district court led to the possibility of initiating an unlimited number of disputes on subsidiary liability in order to overcome judicial acts objectionable to the plaintiff.
The result of the consideration of the complaint was the upholding of the ruling of the court of first instance and the cancellation of the judicial acts issued by the court of appeal and the district court (ruling No. 304-ES21-11789 of October 6, 2021 in case ¹ A67-7066 / 2016).
