RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
WHO EXACTLY WAS DRIVING YOU TO BANKRUPTCY?
The manager applied to the court to hold the controlling persons vicariously liable for the debtor's obligations (case no. A65-2186/23).
In rejecting the application, the court of first instance referred to the failure of the bankruptcy trustee to prove the circumstances indicating that the defendants had committed any actions (including unfair and unreasonable ones) that had caused the debtor's bankruptcy.
Canceling the ruling of the court of first instance and recognizing as proven the existence of grounds for bringing three defendants to subsidiary liability, the court of appeal proceeded from the presumption of bringing the debtor to bankruptcy by their actions, since the amount of the claims of the authorized body included in the register of creditors' claims for the principal debt incurred as a result of the debtor committing a tax offense is over 50% of the total amount the claims of creditors of the third stage for the principal amount of the debt, namely 100%.
The Court of Appeal noted that the circumstances established during the tax audit, namely the unjustified and economically inexpedient transfer of funds by the debtor to the address of "one-day firms" in the absence of a counter provision, indicate the existence of a causal relationship between the actions of successive managers on the withdrawal of assets of the debtor and his bankruptcy.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in part and pointed out that the court of Appeal had not taken into account that this presumption, like others set out in the law, was refutable and did not deprive the defendants of the opportunity to prove the absence of grounds for satisfying the claims brought against them.
According to the instance, in this case, the court of appeal, applying the presumption of bringing the debtor to bankruptcy, imposed subsidiary liability on all three defendants who supervised the debtor during the period for which the on-site tax audit was conducted. Meanwhile, having established that during the analyzed period the debtor had a change of controlling persons, the court of appeal did not find out what role exactly one of the defendants played in the debtor's bankruptcy and what his specific actions caused the bankruptcy, what is the amount of damage caused directly by him.
Photo: Freepik
In rejecting the application, the court of first instance referred to the failure of the bankruptcy trustee to prove the circumstances indicating that the defendants had committed any actions (including unfair and unreasonable ones) that had caused the debtor's bankruptcy.
Canceling the ruling of the court of first instance and recognizing as proven the existence of grounds for bringing three defendants to subsidiary liability, the court of appeal proceeded from the presumption of bringing the debtor to bankruptcy by their actions, since the amount of the claims of the authorized body included in the register of creditors' claims for the principal debt incurred as a result of the debtor committing a tax offense is over 50% of the total amount the claims of creditors of the third stage for the principal amount of the debt, namely 100%.
The Court of Appeal noted that the circumstances established during the tax audit, namely the unjustified and economically inexpedient transfer of funds by the debtor to the address of "one-day firms" in the absence of a counter provision, indicate the existence of a causal relationship between the actions of successive managers on the withdrawal of assets of the debtor and his bankruptcy.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in part and pointed out that the court of Appeal had not taken into account that this presumption, like others set out in the law, was refutable and did not deprive the defendants of the opportunity to prove the absence of grounds for satisfying the claims brought against them.
According to the instance, in this case, the court of appeal, applying the presumption of bringing the debtor to bankruptcy, imposed subsidiary liability on all three defendants who supervised the debtor during the period for which the on-site tax audit was conducted. Meanwhile, having established that during the analyzed period the debtor had a change of controlling persons, the court of appeal did not find out what role exactly one of the defendants played in the debtor's bankruptcy and what his specific actions caused the bankruptcy, what is the amount of damage caused directly by him.
Photo: Freepik
09.10.2025
