THE CASSATION EXPLAINED THE RULES FOR CALCULATING THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR CLAIMS ON THE SUBSIDY

In the framework of the bankruptcy case (No. A08-2756/18), the manager filed an application for bringing a number of persons to subsidiary liability for the debtor's obligations. As a justification for the application, the manager pointed to the fact that the defendants transferred the debtor's production activities (employees and assets) to another legal entity, as a result of which the company became insolvent.

As a confirmation of the transfer of the debtor's employees and their conduct of activities on behalf of third parties, the manager referred to the documents he received from law enforcement officers.

The courts of two instances granted the application, rejecting the arguments about the manager's omission of the statute of limitations, due to the fact that the evidence was received untimely due to circumstances beyond his control – due to their being with law enforcement officers.

The district court overturned the ruling and the ruling, refusing to satisfy the claim.

The cassation noted that the argument of the courts about the manager's compliance with the statute of limitations due to the late receipt of documents is untenable.

As the court pointed out, when visiting the debtor's place of business, the manager had to reveal the fact of doing business on behalf of and in the interests of other economic entities using resources previously owned by the debtor, and therefore the course of the subjective period should be calculated from the specified time, and not from the date of familiarization by the bankruptcy trustee with the materials submitted by law enforcement agencies.

Thus, the cassation stressed the duty of the manager to inspect the production site of the bankrupt company during the inventory.