Ситуация

In relation to our client, the former chief engineer of one of the group of companies that took part in the construction of infrastructure in the Krasnodar Territory and subsequently went bankrupt in 2014, in one of the bankruptcy cases, the bankruptcy trustees filed an application for bringing to subsidiary liability for 1,805,677,441.33 rubles, the second for 169,217,346.61 rubles. By the time of our entry into the case, the application had been considered in the court of first instance for almost a year, and provisional measures had been imposed on all property and bank accounts of the client. Our client was previously represented by another general practice lawyer who was unable to cope with representing him.

The situation was complicated by the fact that in our case the client was both the head of the debtor and its participant in the authorized capital with a share of 25%, that is, the controlling person of the debtor, while, the debtor's insolvency, in the opinion of the managers, fell on our client, while affiliates from the group of companies, where our client also appeared, had a significant influence. The Federal Tax Service (including on debts to extra-budgetary funds) and one of the top 10 Russian banks acted on the side of the managers with multimillion-dollar demands.

Проведенная работа

Employees of the law firm “Paritet”, after a painstaking study of several hundred thousand sheets of documentation of the group of companies and about twenty related arbitration cases, more than two hundred judicial acts, as well as the legal positions of the parties presented, found the necessary arguments in defense of our client, which received a correct judicial assessment. Our lawyers were able to prove that no evidence was presented that the sale of the debtor's fixed assets led to bankruptcy, while the recognition of transactions to seize the debtor's property as invalid does not in itself constitute grounds for bringing to subsidiary liability. In addition, it was proved that part of the debt was of an ordinary economic nature and could not cause bankruptcy, and the largest part of the debt to creditors arose after our client left the management and participants of the debtor. Also, our lawyers have documented that our client took all the actions in his power to settle the debt to off-budget insurance funds that caused the debtor's insolvency, including through the courts, and also filed an application for bankruptcy of the debtor with a slight delay, which was withdrawn already by other persons. In addition, the actual beneficiary of the debtor, who made decisions on his own, was disclosed, and our client could not exert any influence on these decisions. Our lawyers have proved the presence of positive balance sheets, indicating that the debtor had a profit at the time our client left the top management, as well as the presence of prejudicial court decisions, including in criminal cases, that overlapped judicial acts and judicial practice presented by opponents.