RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
28/04/2024
Sunday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
28 April 
1970 World Labor Safety Day
1970 World Labor Safety Day
1970 The Italian dictator Benito Mussollini and his lover, Clara Petacci, were executed
1970 The Italian dictator Benito Mussollini and his lover, Clara Petacci, were executed
1970 The capture of Milan by the troops of Suvorov
1970 The capture of Milan by the troops of Suvorov
28 April
1970 World Labor Safety Day
1970 World Labor Safety Day
1970 The Italian dictator Benito Mussollini and his lover, Clara Petacci, were executed
1970 The Italian dictator Benito Mussollini and his lover, Clara Petacci, were executed
1970 The capture of Milan by the troops of Suvorov
1970 The capture of Milan by the troops of Suvorov
THE POSITION OF THE TAX SERVICE CAN ACT AS PROOF OF UNPROFITABLE TRANSACTIONS
In the framework of the bankruptcy case (No. A41-86878/19), the courts considered applications from the interim manager and the creditor to hold the former director and the sole shareholder of the debtor vicariously liable.
The lower courts refused to satisfy the claims, based on the fact that all the documents of the debtor were transferred by the director to the shareholder, who is not a person obliged to transfer material assets to the manager.
In addition, the courts were guided by the fact that the manager did not apply to the manager for the transfer of documents and property of the debtor.
The district court sent the dispute for a new review and drew attention to the arguments of the cassator that the MIFNS legal position attached to the case file indicated that in the period from 2016 to 2018, that is, during the period when the defendant performed the duties of the debtor's head, the debtor committed a number of suspicious transactions, the main purpose of which was the withdrawal of cash funds from the debtor's current account.
Referring to the fact that the debtor's documents were transferred by the director to the sole shareholder, the courts did not indicate which evidence presented in the materials of the separate dispute confirms this fact (the act of acceptance, transfer, etc.), and if this fact was confirmed by the evidence presented in the materials of the separate dispute, the courts unreasonably refused to bring the sole shareholder of the debtor to subsidiary liability for non-transfer of the debtor's accounting documentation.
Photo: Freepik
The lower courts refused to satisfy the claims, based on the fact that all the documents of the debtor were transferred by the director to the shareholder, who is not a person obliged to transfer material assets to the manager.
In addition, the courts were guided by the fact that the manager did not apply to the manager for the transfer of documents and property of the debtor.
The district court sent the dispute for a new review and drew attention to the arguments of the cassator that the MIFNS legal position attached to the case file indicated that in the period from 2016 to 2018, that is, during the period when the defendant performed the duties of the debtor's head, the debtor committed a number of suspicious transactions, the main purpose of which was the withdrawal of cash funds from the debtor's current account.
Referring to the fact that the debtor's documents were transferred by the director to the sole shareholder, the courts did not indicate which evidence presented in the materials of the separate dispute confirms this fact (the act of acceptance, transfer, etc.), and if this fact was confirmed by the evidence presented in the materials of the separate dispute, the courts unreasonably refused to bring the sole shareholder of the debtor to subsidiary liability for non-transfer of the debtor's accounting documentation.
Photo: Freepik
15.12.2023
