In case A56-41179/2017 on the bankruptcy of the company, considered by the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, one of the creditors filed an application to bring to subsidiary liability persons who previously held the positions of chief accountant and deputy general director of the company. In support of the application, the creditor referred to the failure of these persons to transfer the company’s documentation and property to the bankruptcy trustee, the conclusion of transactions to withdraw funds by setting an extremely high salary for themselves, and the failure to apply to the court with an application to declare the company bankrupt.
After some time, the bankruptcy trustee appealed to the court for recovery from the former chief accountant and the former deputy general director of the losses incurred by the company, which, in the opinion, was caused by the acquisition of a car at the company at a low cost. Subsequently, the trustee changed the stated requirements and asked the court to recognize the transactions for the sale of cars as invalid.
Defending the interests of the former employees of the company, we managed to prove the absence of grounds for bringing them to subsidiary liability and challenging the transactions they concluded with the company. The court agreed with our position that the bankruptcy of the company was not caused by the actions of our clients and that they did not cause losses to the company. The court also agreed with us that the chief accountant and the deputy general director were not controlling persons of the debtor within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Law as amended at the time of the actions imputed to them, in 2011-2014.
In this regard, bringing them to justice under the rules provided for by Article 61.1 of the Bankruptcy Law, as amended, is unacceptable.
As a result, the court refused to satisfy the claims to bring our principals to subsidiary liability, and the decision of the court of first instance was left unchanged by the decisions of the courts of appellate and cassation instances. The court also refused to satisfy the administrator’s application to challenge the transactions; these court decisions were not appealed and came into force.
