RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
03/03/2026
Tuesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
3 March 
1933 Hitler proclaimed the formation of the Third Reich.
1933 Hitler proclaimed the formation of the Third Reich
1878 The principality of Great Bulgaria was formed as part of the Ottoman Empire.
1878 The Principality of Great Bulgaria was formed as part of the Ottoman Empire
1613 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich was elected to reign and became the first tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1613 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich was elected to rule and became the first Tsar of the Romanov dynasty
3 March
1933 Hitler proclaimed the formation of the Third Reich.
1933 Hitler proclaimed the formation of the Third Reich
1878 The principality of Great Bulgaria was formed as part of the Ottoman Empire.
1878 The Principality of Great Bulgaria was formed as part of the Ottoman Empire
1613 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich was elected to reign and became the first tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1613 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich was elected to rule and became the first Tsar of the Romanov dynasty
THE COURT STOPPED THE UNJUSTIFIED INVOLVEMENT OF AU SPECIALISTS UNDER THE CONTRACT
The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District has overturned previously adopted judicial acts and sent for review a case related to the work of the arbitration administrator in the bankruptcy of the company "Ormos Polymer". The reason was doubts about the legality of his registration of specialists.
In the framework of the insolvency case (no.A40-2495/2023), the manager Evgeny Lavrentiev engaged a legal adviser, an accountant and a commandant, concluding employment contracts with them. Lyudmila Bahar, the former head of the debtor, spoke out against this, filing a lawsuit to declare the actions illegal and recover damages in the amount of 952,265 rubles.
Initially, the courts of two instances sided with the manager. In their decisions, they indicated that the recruitment of staff was justified by the objectives of the procedure, the costs fell within the established limits, and the plaintiff did not prove either the fact of fictitious work or unreasonably high wages for their work.
However, the cassation instance did not agree with this approach. The District Court pointed out that the previous instances had not evaluated the key aspects. In particular, it was overlooked why the bankruptcy tasks required monthly labor registration, rather than one-time service contracts. It was also not clarified what specific economic benefits this brought to creditors and why these functions could not be performed by the manager himself.
In addition, the court noted that the possible circumvention of the rules on spending limits and the procedure for repayment of current payments had not been investigated. In this regard, the conclusions about the absence of grounds for recovery of damages were considered premature, and the case was sent for a new review for a full and comprehensive study of all the circumstances.
Photo: Freepik
In the framework of the insolvency case (no.A40-2495/2023), the manager Evgeny Lavrentiev engaged a legal adviser, an accountant and a commandant, concluding employment contracts with them. Lyudmila Bahar, the former head of the debtor, spoke out against this, filing a lawsuit to declare the actions illegal and recover damages in the amount of 952,265 rubles.
Initially, the courts of two instances sided with the manager. In their decisions, they indicated that the recruitment of staff was justified by the objectives of the procedure, the costs fell within the established limits, and the plaintiff did not prove either the fact of fictitious work or unreasonably high wages for their work.
However, the cassation instance did not agree with this approach. The District Court pointed out that the previous instances had not evaluated the key aspects. In particular, it was overlooked why the bankruptcy tasks required monthly labor registration, rather than one-time service contracts. It was also not clarified what specific economic benefits this brought to creditors and why these functions could not be performed by the manager himself.
In addition, the court noted that the possible circumvention of the rules on spending limits and the procedure for repayment of current payments had not been investigated. In this regard, the conclusions about the absence of grounds for recovery of damages were considered premature, and the case was sent for a new review for a full and comprehensive study of all the circumstances.
Photo: Freepik
05.02.2026
