THE REFUSAL TO PAY THE MANAGER'S REMUNERATION MUST BE JUSTIFIED

Refusing to satisfy the application, the courts of two instances proceeded from the fact that, in addition to the chronology of events, the manager did not provide arguments about the relationship between the sequence of filing relevant applications during the debtor's bankruptcy procedure and the repayment of creditors' claims.

The cassation sent the dispute for a new consideration, drawing attention to the fact that the payment of incentive remuneration may be refused if the arbitration manager, the specialists involved by him did not take measures aimed at finding persons controlling the debtor and identifying their assets, took a passive position in the dispute (including did not provide evidence on the basis of which the controlling person the person was held accountable, the necessary arguments and petitions were not stated), they opposed bringing the persons controlling the debtor to responsibility directly or indirectly (in particular, they sought to hold only the nominal head accountable and release the actual one from responsibility).

In this case, the courts came to conclusions that do not correspond to the circumstances that follow from the content of judicial acts, since the courts indicated that the application for subsidiary liability itself was filed earlier than the statement of intent for three months, but considered that this circumstance could not be taken into account.

Also, in other episodes of evaluating the actions of the manager, the courts, pointing to the commission of specific actions by the bankruptcy trustee, evaded due assessment and clarification of those circumstances that caused the courts doubts that prevented the satisfaction of this application.

Photo: Freepik