RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
26/07/2026
Sunday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
26 July 
1970 The independence of the Maldives was proclaimed.
1970 The independence of the Maldives was proclaimed.
1970 War on the Indians was declared in Boston
1970 A war on the Native Americans (the Indians) was declared in Boston. From 15 to 100 pounds was promised for the scalp of one Indian.
1970 Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich convened the boyar Duma and the Council of the Patriarch to collect all the old laws and put them in order.
26 July
1970 The independence of the Maldives was proclaimed.
1970 The independence of the Maldives was proclaimed.
1970 War on the Indians was declared in Boston
1970 A war on the Native Americans (the Indians) was declared in Boston. From 15 to 100 pounds was promised for the scalp of one Indian.
1970 Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich convened the boyar Duma and the Council of the Patriarch to collect all the old laws and put them in order.
TAX FIRMS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FOUNDER'S LIABILITY
The manager filed a lawsuit to recover damages from the former director of the debtor, as well as from the founders and other controlling parties (case No. A19-11291/19).
The courts of two instances, while partially satisfying the claims, concluded that the manager had missed the statute of limitations for the claim for damages for the episode in which the debtor transferred funds to the contractor's account in the absence of any real financial or economic relations. After examining the facts of the alleged offense regarding the additional tax obligations, the courts concluded that the case materials confirmed the existence of unconscionable or unreasonable actions by the defendants, which led to the late payment of taxes and, consequently, the accrual of penalties.
The courts also found that the statute of limitations had been partially exceeded, and therefore only the former director and founder were held liable. As for the other defendants, the court concluded that the statute of limitations had been exceeded.
The cassation court overturned the court decisions and partially granted the claim. Given the date of the debtor's bankruptcy, the entry into force of the tax authority's decision, and the inclusion of the claim in the debtor's register, the statute of limitations for holding the former director liable had expired by the date of the actual claim. The courts did not find any objective obstacles to the timely filing of the claim, and the manager did not declare any such obstacles. In these circumstances, given that the statute of limitations for the claim had been passed, and the defendant had declared that the statute of limitations had been passed in the first instance court, there was no basis for the manager's claims to be satisfied.
The founder's arguments about the lack of convincing evidence that the creditor's claims could not be satisfied due to the founder's actions were rejected by the district court as not consistent with the case materials. As correctly established by the courts, the verdict that has entered into force established a set of coordinated actions by the defendants aimed at removing the debtor's property. These circumstances were established by the verdict that has entered into force and the decision to impose tax liability on the taxpayer. The circumstances established in the criminal and arbitration proceedings have a preclusive effect. There are no grounds for reviewing the established circumstances in this case.
The district court concluded that there were grounds for changing the amount of the founder's liability. The amount of damages to be recovered is determined by the total amount of claims, of which a portion is penalties for tax offenses. Penalties for tax offenses are not taken into account when determining the amount of subsidiary liability.
The courts of two instances, while partially satisfying the claims, concluded that the manager had missed the statute of limitations for the claim for damages for the episode in which the debtor transferred funds to the contractor's account in the absence of any real financial or economic relations. After examining the facts of the alleged offense regarding the additional tax obligations, the courts concluded that the case materials confirmed the existence of unconscionable or unreasonable actions by the defendants, which led to the late payment of taxes and, consequently, the accrual of penalties.
The courts also found that the statute of limitations had been partially exceeded, and therefore only the former director and founder were held liable. As for the other defendants, the court concluded that the statute of limitations had been exceeded.
The cassation court overturned the court decisions and partially granted the claim. Given the date of the debtor's bankruptcy, the entry into force of the tax authority's decision, and the inclusion of the claim in the debtor's register, the statute of limitations for holding the former director liable had expired by the date of the actual claim. The courts did not find any objective obstacles to the timely filing of the claim, and the manager did not declare any such obstacles. In these circumstances, given that the statute of limitations for the claim had been passed, and the defendant had declared that the statute of limitations had been passed in the first instance court, there was no basis for the manager's claims to be satisfied.
The founder's arguments about the lack of convincing evidence that the creditor's claims could not be satisfied due to the founder's actions were rejected by the district court as not consistent with the case materials. As correctly established by the courts, the verdict that has entered into force established a set of coordinated actions by the defendants aimed at removing the debtor's property. These circumstances were established by the verdict that has entered into force and the decision to impose tax liability on the taxpayer. The circumstances established in the criminal and arbitration proceedings have a preclusive effect. There are no grounds for reviewing the established circumstances in this case.
The district court concluded that there were grounds for changing the amount of the founder's liability. The amount of damages to be recovered is determined by the total amount of claims, of which a portion is penalties for tax offenses. Penalties for tax offenses are not taken into account when determining the amount of subsidiary liability.
01.07.2026
