RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
24/04/2026
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
24 April 
1970 The Hubble Orbital Telescope was launched
1970 The Hubble Orbital Telescope was launched
1970 Namibia became a German colony
1970 Namibia became a German colony
1970 Sparkling water was patented in the United States
1970 Sparkling water was patented in the United States
24 April
1970 The Hubble Orbital Telescope was launched
1970 The Hubble Orbital Telescope was launched
1970 Namibia became a German colony
1970 Namibia became a German colony
1970 Sparkling water was patented in the United States
1970 Sparkling water was patented in the United States
THE PRESUMPTION OF MARITAL AFFILIATION DOES NOT EXEMPT THE COURT FROM ASSESSING THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRANSACTIONS AND BANKRUPTCY.
The manager applied for subsidiary liability of the debtor's former managers and participants (case no. A40-1773/23).
The courts of two instances granted the application, based on the fact that none of the former managers ensured the proper storage of the accounting statements of the controlled company and the transfer of such statements to the new general director and subsequently to the manager.
As established by the court, during the period when one of the defendants was the head of the debtor, transactions were made that were declared invalid. In addition, the debtor's participant and the head of the company are affiliated persons. Until proven otherwise, it is assumed that there are joint actions of several controlling persons affiliated with each other.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in terms of the claim against the debtor's participant, noting that the mere fact of the loss of a transaction concluded under the influence of a controlling person (a set of transactions) cannot serve as an unconditional confirmation of the existence of grounds for subsidiary liability.
The presumption of bankruptcy as a result of a transaction (series of transactions) can be applied to a controlling person if the transaction(s) simultaneously meets two qualifying criteria: it is significant for the debtor (in relation to the scale of its activities) and significantly unprofitable. In the present case, the courts did not check whether the transactions imputed to the defendant were significantly unprofitable, based on the scale of the debtor's activities. The courts did not properly investigate the circumstances involved in the subject of proof, as to whether these transactions led to signs of objective bankruptcy or a significant aggravation of the property crisis.
Photo: Freepik
The courts of two instances granted the application, based on the fact that none of the former managers ensured the proper storage of the accounting statements of the controlled company and the transfer of such statements to the new general director and subsequently to the manager.
As established by the court, during the period when one of the defendants was the head of the debtor, transactions were made that were declared invalid. In addition, the debtor's participant and the head of the company are affiliated persons. Until proven otherwise, it is assumed that there are joint actions of several controlling persons affiliated with each other.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in terms of the claim against the debtor's participant, noting that the mere fact of the loss of a transaction concluded under the influence of a controlling person (a set of transactions) cannot serve as an unconditional confirmation of the existence of grounds for subsidiary liability.
The presumption of bankruptcy as a result of a transaction (series of transactions) can be applied to a controlling person if the transaction(s) simultaneously meets two qualifying criteria: it is significant for the debtor (in relation to the scale of its activities) and significantly unprofitable. In the present case, the courts did not check whether the transactions imputed to the defendant were significantly unprofitable, based on the scale of the debtor's activities. The courts did not properly investigate the circumstances involved in the subject of proof, as to whether these transactions led to signs of objective bankruptcy or a significant aggravation of the property crisis.
Photo: Freepik
23.04.2026
