RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
25/05/2026
Monday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
25 May 
1970 Africa's Liberation Day.
1970 Africa's Liberation Day.
1970 North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test.
1970 The independence of Jordan from England was declared.
1970 The independence of Jordan from England was declared.
25 May
1970 Africa's Liberation Day.
1970 Africa's Liberation Day.
1970 North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test.
1970 The independence of Jordan from England was declared.
1970 The independence of Jordan from England was declared.
THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN LOSSES AND SUBSIDY
The manager applied to the court for recovery of damages from the former head of the debtor (case no. A65-23072/23).
The defendant was held vicariously liable by the courts of two instances, since as a result of money withdrawal transactions without evidence of counter–performance, the debtor stopped settlements with creditors, including stopped making lease payments, as a result of which the debtor's only asset, the vehicle, was seized by the lessor. Also, the defendant, having received unjustified enrichment from the creditor, acting reasonably and in good faith, had to return the funds to the applicant in the case, however, the defendant turned the funds in his favor. Based on this, the courts concluded that the illegal actions of the former head of the company led to the impossibility of forming and implementing the bankruptcy estate.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that the issue of changing the claim made by the bankruptcy trustee was not discussed by the courts of the first and appellate instances, the bankruptcy trustee or persons who have the right to file an application for bringing persons controlling the debtor to subsidiary responsibility did not apply to the court with such an application, the opinions of persons who The right to file an application for bringing the persons controlling the debtor to subsidiary responsibility was not clarified in this regard.
In the event that the damage caused by the controlling persons specified in the law, based on reasonable expectations, should not have led to the debtor's objective bankruptcy, such persons are obliged to compensate for the losses caused by their fault in the amount determined according to the rules of the legislation.
Thus, in order to properly resolve the dispute on bringing controlling persons to subsidiary responsibility, the courts needed to establish how significant each of the transactions in favor of the defendant was relative to the scale of the debtor's activities, including the disputed transfer (withdrawal) of funds, the commission of which caused damage to the property interests of creditors, whether the occurrence of bankruptcy led to the commission of such transactions, whether there has been a significant deterioration in the debtor's financial situation, and based on what has been established, qualify the disputed legal relationship.
The courts also failed to verify whether such spending of funds by the former head of the company led to the debtor's bankruptcy, or whether the damage caused represented losses inflicted on the company.
Photo: Freepik
The defendant was held vicariously liable by the courts of two instances, since as a result of money withdrawal transactions without evidence of counter–performance, the debtor stopped settlements with creditors, including stopped making lease payments, as a result of which the debtor's only asset, the vehicle, was seized by the lessor. Also, the defendant, having received unjustified enrichment from the creditor, acting reasonably and in good faith, had to return the funds to the applicant in the case, however, the defendant turned the funds in his favor. Based on this, the courts concluded that the illegal actions of the former head of the company led to the impossibility of forming and implementing the bankruptcy estate.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that the issue of changing the claim made by the bankruptcy trustee was not discussed by the courts of the first and appellate instances, the bankruptcy trustee or persons who have the right to file an application for bringing persons controlling the debtor to subsidiary responsibility did not apply to the court with such an application, the opinions of persons who The right to file an application for bringing the persons controlling the debtor to subsidiary responsibility was not clarified in this regard.
In the event that the damage caused by the controlling persons specified in the law, based on reasonable expectations, should not have led to the debtor's objective bankruptcy, such persons are obliged to compensate for the losses caused by their fault in the amount determined according to the rules of the legislation.
Thus, in order to properly resolve the dispute on bringing controlling persons to subsidiary responsibility, the courts needed to establish how significant each of the transactions in favor of the defendant was relative to the scale of the debtor's activities, including the disputed transfer (withdrawal) of funds, the commission of which caused damage to the property interests of creditors, whether the occurrence of bankruptcy led to the commission of such transactions, whether there has been a significant deterioration in the debtor's financial situation, and based on what has been established, qualify the disputed legal relationship.
The courts also failed to verify whether such spending of funds by the former head of the company led to the debtor's bankruptcy, or whether the damage caused represented losses inflicted on the company.
Photo: Freepik
20.05.2026
