THE SUPREME COURT WILL DEAL WITH THE FAKE INTRODUCTION OF A NEW PARTICIPANT INTO SOCIETY ON THE CLAIM OF A SPOUSE

The plaintiff motivated his claim by the fact that the transaction for the introduction of a new participant into the company was made after the termination of the actual marital relationship and is a fake, since it covers the transaction for the alienation by the defendant in favor of the company of a part of the share in the amount of 90% of the authorized capital of the company.

The court of first instance did not share the plaintiff's position and refused to satisfy the claim, referring to the fact that, since the increase in the authorized capital of the company can be carried out, inter alia, at the expense of the contribution of a third party accepted into the company, the transaction, as a result of which the company acquired 90% of the share in the authorized capital of the company, did not require a notarized the consent of the spouse, since the decision of the sole participant formalized the distribution between the participants of the company of the share that arose as a result of an increase in the authorized capital.

The higher courts satisfied the stated requirements, pointing out that within the framework of the dispute, the company did not challenge the presumption of awareness that the disputed asset is the common joint property of the spouses.

On this basis, the court of appeal concluded that the plaintiff duly proved that the actions of the defendants to accept a new participant into the company's membership and increase the authorized capital for the purpose of subsequent alienation of the defendant's share in favor of the company are invalid transactions.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation referred the case to the collegium and noted that as a result of the "covering transactions" committed, the property of the spouses did not actually decrease, but increased 2.5 times.

Taking into account the actual increase in the authorized capital of the company by making an additional contribution, the conclusions of the courts of appeal and cassation instances on the imaginary, pretence of the so-called "covering" transactions cannot be considered justified.