RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
THE CHILD DOES NOT RESPOND, BUT CAN HOLD
The manager appealed to the court demanding that the defendants be held vicariously liable and recover damages from them (case no. A07-30925/20).
In refusing to satisfy the claims, the courts of two instances proceeded from the defendants' lack of the status of persons controlling the debtor, noting that there was no evidence in the case indicating that the defendants had the ability to give binding instructions to the debtor or otherwise determine his financial and economic activities, influence his decisions, or the existence of actual control. and the debtor's subordination to the defendants.
The courts also pointed out that the case materials did not confirm the existence of the composition necessary to bring the defendants to subsidiary liability on the stated grounds, in particular, the unlawful behavior of the defendants, their guilt and harm, and the causal relationship between their actions and the harm caused.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that minor children are not controlling persons of the debtor. The above does not exclude the possibility that parents may use the identity of the children as a tool to conceal property belonging to the parents from foreclosure on creditors' claims for compensation for damage caused by the parents to these creditors.
The court noted that parents can arrange for the transfer of ownership of property to their children only for appearance, without the intention of creating appropriate legal consequences, thereby making an imaginary deal. Compensation for the damage caused to creditors is limited in size by the value of the property, although it has changed ownership, but, in fact, left in the family.
Despite the fact that the grounds for creditors' claims against the controlling persons and the relatives who acquired their property do not coincide, creditors' claims against them pursue a single goal - to fully compensate for losses, therefore, the obligations of the controlling persons and the said relatives are joint. In order to impose liability on minor children, it is necessary to establish not whether they have or do not have the formal status of a controlling debtor, but the actual use of the identity of minor children as a tool to conceal the property of parents from collection according to creditors' claims.
In the case under consideration, the courts had to establish whether the parents, when transferring the disputed building to their minor children, were really pursuing the goal of fulfilling obligations under the alimony agreement, or when transferring ownership of the disputed building to their minor children, the parents were pursuing a different goal – concealing the title of the real owner of the disputed building and thus freeing the disputed building from foreclosure. the creditors of the parents on tort obligations.
Considering that the said agreement is the subject of independent judicial proceedings, the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the assessment of this agreement, as well as the conclusions of the Court of Appeal that this agreement has not been recognized as invalid, and if recognized as such, a review of the contested judicial acts is possible, are unfounded and premature.
In such circumstances, it is impossible to consider the merits of the claims for holding children accountable who are in solidarity with the administrator's claims against their parents until the merits of the claims against the parents for holding them vicariously liable for the debtor's obligations for bringing the latter to bankruptcy are resolved.
The investigation and assessment of these circumstances should be carried out taking into account the conclusions of the courts based on the results of consideration of the merits of the claims against parents to hold them vicariously liable for the debtor's obligations for bringing the latter to bankruptcy.
Considering the above, the district court considered that the conclusions of the courts on the absence of grounds for satisfying the bankruptcy trustee's claims were premature, made with incomplete establishment of the factual circumstances of the case and the evidence presented.
In addition, it follows from the information resource that, in addition to the present bankruptcy case, similar claims have been filed against children in the framework of insolvency proceedings against other companies, in each of which, in the bankruptcy estate of each of the debtors, the applicant requests that the defendants jointly recover damages caused as a result of the loss of the same disputed property.
Thus, the arbitration administrator, acting in the framework of various bankruptcy cases in the status of bankruptcy trustee of various debtors, and representing the interests of various creditor communities in each of these bankruptcy cases, actually requires the recovery of the same amount from minor children, based on the same factual circumstances, from which it follows, that in this case there is a situation of multiple recoveries from the same defendants in favor of different persons in different cases of the cost of the same disputed building, the total amount of which exceeds a significant amount, which is unacceptable, violates the balance of interests of all participants in the bankruptcy process, contradicts the principles of fairness and proportionality of civil liability and creates the risk of unjustified enrichment of individual creditors by repeatedly satisfying claims for the same reason.
However, these circumstances were not taken into account by the courts when considering this separate dispute, and the issue of the repeated collection of the same amount from the children was not resolved.
Photo: Freepik
In refusing to satisfy the claims, the courts of two instances proceeded from the defendants' lack of the status of persons controlling the debtor, noting that there was no evidence in the case indicating that the defendants had the ability to give binding instructions to the debtor or otherwise determine his financial and economic activities, influence his decisions, or the existence of actual control. and the debtor's subordination to the defendants.
The courts also pointed out that the case materials did not confirm the existence of the composition necessary to bring the defendants to subsidiary liability on the stated grounds, in particular, the unlawful behavior of the defendants, their guilt and harm, and the causal relationship between their actions and the harm caused.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that minor children are not controlling persons of the debtor. The above does not exclude the possibility that parents may use the identity of the children as a tool to conceal property belonging to the parents from foreclosure on creditors' claims for compensation for damage caused by the parents to these creditors.
The court noted that parents can arrange for the transfer of ownership of property to their children only for appearance, without the intention of creating appropriate legal consequences, thereby making an imaginary deal. Compensation for the damage caused to creditors is limited in size by the value of the property, although it has changed ownership, but, in fact, left in the family.
Despite the fact that the grounds for creditors' claims against the controlling persons and the relatives who acquired their property do not coincide, creditors' claims against them pursue a single goal - to fully compensate for losses, therefore, the obligations of the controlling persons and the said relatives are joint. In order to impose liability on minor children, it is necessary to establish not whether they have or do not have the formal status of a controlling debtor, but the actual use of the identity of minor children as a tool to conceal the property of parents from collection according to creditors' claims.
In the case under consideration, the courts had to establish whether the parents, when transferring the disputed building to their minor children, were really pursuing the goal of fulfilling obligations under the alimony agreement, or when transferring ownership of the disputed building to their minor children, the parents were pursuing a different goal – concealing the title of the real owner of the disputed building and thus freeing the disputed building from foreclosure. the creditors of the parents on tort obligations.
Considering that the said agreement is the subject of independent judicial proceedings, the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the assessment of this agreement, as well as the conclusions of the Court of Appeal that this agreement has not been recognized as invalid, and if recognized as such, a review of the contested judicial acts is possible, are unfounded and premature.
In such circumstances, it is impossible to consider the merits of the claims for holding children accountable who are in solidarity with the administrator's claims against their parents until the merits of the claims against the parents for holding them vicariously liable for the debtor's obligations for bringing the latter to bankruptcy are resolved.
The investigation and assessment of these circumstances should be carried out taking into account the conclusions of the courts based on the results of consideration of the merits of the claims against parents to hold them vicariously liable for the debtor's obligations for bringing the latter to bankruptcy.
Considering the above, the district court considered that the conclusions of the courts on the absence of grounds for satisfying the bankruptcy trustee's claims were premature, made with incomplete establishment of the factual circumstances of the case and the evidence presented.
In addition, it follows from the information resource that, in addition to the present bankruptcy case, similar claims have been filed against children in the framework of insolvency proceedings against other companies, in each of which, in the bankruptcy estate of each of the debtors, the applicant requests that the defendants jointly recover damages caused as a result of the loss of the same disputed property.
Thus, the arbitration administrator, acting in the framework of various bankruptcy cases in the status of bankruptcy trustee of various debtors, and representing the interests of various creditor communities in each of these bankruptcy cases, actually requires the recovery of the same amount from minor children, based on the same factual circumstances, from which it follows, that in this case there is a situation of multiple recoveries from the same defendants in favor of different persons in different cases of the cost of the same disputed building, the total amount of which exceeds a significant amount, which is unacceptable, violates the balance of interests of all participants in the bankruptcy process, contradicts the principles of fairness and proportionality of civil liability and creates the risk of unjustified enrichment of individual creditors by repeatedly satisfying claims for the same reason.
However, these circumstances were not taken into account by the courts when considering this separate dispute, and the issue of the repeated collection of the same amount from the children was not resolved.
Photo: Freepik
10.11.2025
