RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
16/09/2024
Monday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
16 September 
1970 "Black Wednesday" of the British pound sterling.
1970 The Montreal Treaty for the Protection of the Earth's Ozone Layer was signed.
1970 Mexico declared independence from Spain.
16 September
1970 "Black Wednesday" of the British pound sterling.
1970 The Montreal Treaty for the Protection of the Earth's Ozone Layer was signed.
1970 Mexico declared independence from Spain.
YOU CAN'T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME THING IN BANKRUPTCY CASES OF DIFFERENT COMPANIES
In the framework of the bankruptcy case (No. A40-41566/19), the manager filed an application for bringing to subsidiary responsibility the head of the logistics department of the debtor's parent company.
Refusing to satisfy the application, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the actions (transactions) imputed to the defendant did not cause any significant harm, did not entail the bankruptcy of the debtor and the impossibility of returning funds to the bankruptcy creditor – a foreign company.
The appeal satisfied the application, pointing out that transactions for the withdrawal of funds to a company controlled by the defendant led to the bankruptcy of the debtor.
The cassation changed the appeal decision and recovered losses from the defendant in the amount of withdrawn and non-returned funds, guided by the established circumstances that testified to unlawful harm to the parent company and the debtor as a result of the defendant's transactions.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation referred the defendant's complaint to the board for consideration. According to the court, the defendant, insisting on the erroneous conclusions of the courts of appeal and the district, refers to the double recovery of losses from him for the same obligations in bankruptcy cases of subsidiaries and parent companies.
Refusing to satisfy the application, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the actions (transactions) imputed to the defendant did not cause any significant harm, did not entail the bankruptcy of the debtor and the impossibility of returning funds to the bankruptcy creditor – a foreign company.
The appeal satisfied the application, pointing out that transactions for the withdrawal of funds to a company controlled by the defendant led to the bankruptcy of the debtor.
The cassation changed the appeal decision and recovered losses from the defendant in the amount of withdrawn and non-returned funds, guided by the established circumstances that testified to unlawful harm to the parent company and the debtor as a result of the defendant's transactions.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation referred the defendant's complaint to the board for consideration. According to the court, the defendant, insisting on the erroneous conclusions of the courts of appeal and the district, refers to the double recovery of losses from him for the same obligations in bankruptcy cases of subsidiaries and parent companies.
06.08.2024
