НЕЛЬЗЯ «СУБСИДИАРИТЬ» НОВОГО ДИРЕКТОРА ЗА ОШИБКИ ПРЕДШЕСТВЕННИКА

In a debtor’s bankruptcy case (No. A56-100336/21), the trustee filed a petition to hold a former director vicariously liable, citing a number of circumstances in support of the claim.

The defendant’s predecessor as director concluded an equipment supply contract.
As part of the fulfillment of its obligations under this contract, the company transferred funds in favor of the debtor, but subsequently filed a claim with the court for recovery of unjust enrichment due to the fact of non-delivery of equipment.

Based on the assignment agreement, a company became the debtor’s new creditor and filed a bankruptcy petition against the debtor, being its sole creditor.

The manager, referring to the fact that the defendant had not filed an appeal against the decision to recover funds from the debtor in favor of the company, in the presence of evidence of the fact of transfer of the disputed equipment – the transfer deed, asked to bring him to subsidiary liability, which was agreed by the courts of two instances.

The district court sent the dispute for a new consideration, noting that the manager in support of the application in question pointed to the actual illegality, unreasonableness of the effective court act of the court, which was not canceled as a result of inaction of the defendant.

This position of the applicant violates not only the principle of the binding nature of a judicial act, but is actually aimed at establishing, outside of the procedures for appealing a judicial act provided for by the procedural law.

In addition, the courts did not take into account that the failure of the defendant in the time established by the procedural law of the appeal of the court decision does not form the composition of subsidiary liability for the inability to repay the creditor’s claims.

Source: https://rusbankrot.ru/legislative-news/nelzya-subsidiarit-novogo-direktora-za-oshibki-predshestvennika/