We know everything about bankruptcy
01/01/2025
Wednesday
1 January 
2021 Gregorian calendar New Year.
2020 Gregorian calendar New Year
1998 Denomination was held in Russia - a copeck was put into circulation again.
1998 Denomination was held in Russia - a penny was put into circulation again
1935 Surnames were introduced instead of titles in Turkey.
1935 Surnames were introduced instead of titles in Turkey in 1935
THE DISTRICT COURT CONSIDERED THE RIGHT OF SUBSIDIARY DEFENDANTS TO CLAIM DAMAGES
In August 2022, the Pharmaceutical Plus Analytics company, which is the bankruptcy creditor of Russo Chemi M, applied to the capital arbitration. The organization demanded to recover losses from several affiliated structures (Russo Pack, Russo Logistics, Russo Industrial, etc.), as well as from a number of individuals who controlled the activities of the bankrupt enterprise in the past.
The court accepted the petition for production. Urumkanov and Zamyatina also sent petitions, asking to be recognized as co-applicants in the matter of recovery of damages. However, already at the end of October 2022, the court received a new petition from the main applicant, in which Pharmaceuticals Plus Analytics refused the previously submitted application.
In March 2023, the Moscow arbitration court refused Urumkanov and Zamyatina, accepting the company's refusal from a previously filed application containing a request to recover damages. Production has been discontinued. However, an appeal (9th AAC) in June 2023 overturned the verdict of the Court of First Instance (AS GM). The Court considered that both applicants could participate in this dispute, since they were brought to subsidiary responsibility.
As a result, the case reached the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District, which issued its Ruling on September 6. The cassation drew attention to the fact that the lower instances did not even try to establish the circle of persons whose interests could be violated by the refusal of Pharmaceuticals Plus Analytics from its initial application and the approval of this refusal by the court.
In addition, the appeal did not explain the reasons for its conclusion about why Urumkanov and Zamyatina cannot be co-applicants or make independent claims in this case. Taking into account the lack of its own procedural interest in claiming damages from third parties, the panel of judges pointed out the impossibility of former managers to participate in this litigation as co-applicants. However, this does not prevent the court from involving them in the dispute as third parties who do not make independent claims. As a result, the adopted acts of lower instances were canceled by the district court, and the case was sent for reconsideration.
