“Technical” loans and directors’ liability

The number of cases of subsidiary liability of persons controlling the debtor increases every year. The circle of persons falling under the definition of “person controlling the debtor” is constantly expanding. The record is regularly broken for the amount of liability of the persons controlling the debtor brought to justice, and for the number of persons brought to justice⁠ .

In the context of a constant increase in the number of separate disputes about subsidiary liability, an expansion of the circle of potential defendants and an increase in the amount of liability, more and more articles, scientific publications are appearing, more and more conferences, webinars, round tables and other events are being held on this issue. Today, the topic of subsidiary liability is certainly one of the most relevant and in demand.

This article makes an attempt to analyze one of the bankruptcy cases considered by the arbitration court of the Republic of Tatarstan, in which some issues were considered regarding bringing to subsidiary liability the management of Kamsky Horizon Bank and members of its board of directors (case No. A65-28276/2016⁠ ).

By the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Tatarstan dated January 16, 2017, the bankruptcy procedure⁠ was introduced in relation to the commercial bank Kamsky Horizon.

The State Corporation "Deposit Insurance Agency" (hereinafter referred to as the DIA) applied to the arbitration court with an application to bring to subsidiary liability for the obligations of the debtor Natalia Vladimirovna Polovinko, Evgeniy Vladimirovich Popov, Daria Vadimovna Yuzhakova, Sergei Anatolyevich Vostrikov, Alexey Olegovich Volkov, Lutfullin Ilyas Ilgizyarovich, Timur Makarovich Rodionov, Rafgat Zakievich Altynbaev and jointly and severally recovering from these persons 827,312,000 rubles in accordance with Article 61.11 of the Bankruptcy Law.

Let's consider some aspects of this separate dispute in terms of bringing to subsidiary liability the members of the board of directors of the bank Volkova A.O., Lutfullin I.I. and Rodionova T.M.

Since the DIA’s arguments in applications for bringing members of the board of directors of banks to subsidiary liability often coincide or are similar, I hope that the analysis of the arguments of the DIA and the counterarguments of the defendants given in this article will be useful for participants in separate disputes on bringing members of the boards of directors of banks to subsidiary liability in other cases.

It should be noted that not all of the defendants’ arguments were reflected in the reasoning part of the judicial acts, but they were certainly taken into account by the courts when making decisions.

Actual circumstances imputed to members of the board of directors of Kamsky Horizon Bank

All three members of the bank's board of directors were charged with the following factual circumstances:

• being a member of the board of directors of the bank, performing the task of ensuring compliance with the requirements for effective risk management of banking activities and the bank's capital, as well as the safety of the bank's assets, the defendant had the powers and bore the responsibilities assigned to him by the current legislation and the bank's charter, and therefore not only had the opportunity to familiarize himself with all decisions made by the board of directors of the bank, but also, conscientiously performing his duties, having information about the financial position of the bank and the quality of its assets, before concluding transactions for lending to the borrower, a member of the board of directors acted unreasonably and in bad faith, namely, did not provide a proper risk assessment, without taking into account significant information about the financial condition of the borrower, in the absence of the ability to independently fulfill loan obligations, which was reflected in the decision to approve the issuance of loans in the credit line mode to the borrower with a debt limit under the revolving credit line in the amount of 45 million rubles;
• Having established that the bank’s board of directors has made a decision on lending to the borrower, a member of the board of directors is obliged to give them a proper assessment and take action to challenge the relevant decisions of the bank’s collegial body. Such behavior of a member of the bank’s board of directors in the form of not challenging decisions of the board of directors also characterizes his bad faith;
• lending to the borrower was risky, and with an objective assessment of the quality of the loan debt, credit funds should not have been provided to the borrower. The organization's loan debt was subject to qualification into the category with an additional accrual of the amount of the formed reserve up to 100 percent on the basis of Regulation No. 254-P [7], despite this circumstance, the board of directors decided to lend to the borrower;
• the deterioration of the financial position of the credit organization is associated with the appearance on the bank’s balance sheet of unsecured loan debt of an organization that does not conduct real economic activity or carries out it in volumes not comparable with the amount of its lending by the bank, from which the applicant concluded that there is a connection between lending to the borrower and the objective bankruptcy of the bank;
• Some documents were missing from the borrower’s credit file, some documents were not signed by one of the parties, some of them were not accompanied by the authority of the sponsors, some mandatory security transactions were not concluded, etc.;
• the borrower's authorized capital was twice the minimum amount of authorized capital provided for by law;
• the borrower's staff consisted of one person, the borrower's activities had no real character;
• the volume of lending to the borrower did not correspond to the volume of its economic activity.

Arguments of the DIA as a legal basis for the claim

The DIA gave the following arguments:

• according to paragraph 2 of Article 44 of the Law on LLC [8], paragraph 3 of Article 53 and Article 53.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), a person who, by virtue of the law, another legal act or the constituent document of a legal entity, is authorized to act on its behalf, is obliged to compensate, at the request of the legal entity, its founders (participants) acting in the interests of the legal entity, losses caused through his fault to the legal entity face. This responsibility is also borne by members of the collegial bodies of a legal entity, with the exception of those of them who voted against a decision that caused losses to the legal entity, or, acting in good faith, did not take part in the vote, as well as a person who has the actual ability to determine the actions of the legal entity;
• taking into account paragraph 1 of Article 53 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the LLC Law, the bodies of a legal entity, exercising their powers in accordance with the law and other legal acts, are obliged to ensure that the bank complies with the requirements of the law;
• According to Article 7 of the Federal Law of July 10, 2002 No. 86-FZ “On the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (Bank of Russia)”, the Bank of Russia issues in the form of instructions, regulations and instructions regulations that are binding on all individuals and legal entities. Taking into account the requirements of the Bank of Russia, a credit institution is obliged to comprehensively and objectively assess the financial position of the borrower (counterparty), the risks of issued loans, concluded transactions and create reserves for possible losses on loans and transactions entailing risks of financial losses, including in accordance with Regulation No. 254-P;
• Clause 3.1 of Regulation No. 254-P establishes that the bank must conduct a risk assessment for each loan issued based on a comprehensive and objective analysis of the borrower’s activities, taking into account its financial situation, the quality of the borrower’s debt service on the loan, as well as all information available to the credit institution about any risks of the borrower, including information about the borrower’s external obligations, the functioning of the market (markets) in which the borrower operates. According to clause 3.1.2 of Regulation No. 254-P, sources of obtaining information about the risks of the borrower (counterparty) are the borrower’s title documents, its accounting, tax, statistical and other reporting, the media, additional information provided by the borrower, and other sources. In accordance with clause 3.1.3 of Regulation No. 254-P, all information about the borrower or counterparty, including information about the risks of the borrower (counterparty), is recorded in its file;
• in paragraph three of paragraph 1 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 23, 2015 No. 25 “On the application by courts of certain provisions of section 1 of part one of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation” it is explained that, when assessing the actions of the parties as bona fide or dishonest, one should proceed from the behavior expected from any participant in civil circulation, taking into account the rights and legitimate interests of the other party, assisting it, including in obtaining the necessary information;
• according to paragraph 2 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 30, 2013 No. 62, the dishonesty of the actions of management bodies is considered proven if, for example, such a body knew or should have known that its actions (inaction) at the time of their commission did not meet the interests of the legal entity, for example, it made a transaction (voted for its approval) on conditions that were obviously unfavorable for the legal entity;
• according to paragraph 1 of Article 189.23 of the Bankruptcy Law, in the event of bankruptcy of a credit organization as a result of guilty actions or inaction of its managers, they may be held subsidiary liable for the obligations of the credit organization;
• according to paragraph 3 of Article 189.23 of the Bankruptcy Law, until otherwise is proven, it is assumed that the bankruptcy of a credit organization occurred as a result of the actions and (or) inaction of persons controlling the credit organization, in the presence of one of the circumstances specified, in particular, in subparagraph 1 of paragraph 2 of Article 61.11 of the Bankruptcy Law, namely, if it is impossible to fully repay the creditors' claims due to the actions and (or) inaction of the person controlling the debtor, provided that significant damage has been caused to the property rights of creditors as a result of the commission by this person or in favor of this person or the approval by this person of one or more transactions of the debtor.

Objections of the defendants who were members of the board of directors, on the basis of which the court rejected the claims against them

1. At the time of approval of the loans by members of the board of directors, the borrower had no debt on taxes and fees, and there was no file cabinet in the accounts, including those in other banks.

2. The financial position of the borrower at the time of lending was good:

   1. 2.1) the borrower's revenue for 2015 exceeded the borrower's obligations under loans approved by the board of directors;
   2. 2.2) the average monthly turnover of the borrower at the bank six months before the loan was issued was several times greater than the amount of loans issued by the bank;
   3. 2.3) there is no evidence of the transit nature of the movement of funds;
   4. 2.4) the ratio of the borrower's loan obligations to revenue gave grounds for the conclusion that loan obligations could be repaid by the borrower from proceeds in approximately 10 months, while loans were issued for a period of 24 and 36 months;
   5. 2.5) the borrower, as of the last reporting date before the issuance of approved loans, had revenues that significantly exceeded the amount of the borrower’s obligations to the bank under loan agreements;
   6. 2.6) all of the above indicates that the DIA’s statement, which forms the basis of the claims that “the volume of lending did not correspond to the volume of activity of the debtor,” is refuted by the case materials;
   7. 2.7) The applicant’s very statement that the volume of lending must correspond to the volume of economic activity is not consistent with the financial and economic activities of the borrowers. Raising borrowed funds for business development would be impossible if, when issuing loans, credit institutions proceeded solely from the volume of activity of the borrower, and not from his potential to repay the loan;
   8. 2.8) professional opinions in the borrower’s credit file characterized its financial position as positive. Before issuing the loan, the bank assessed the nature of the company’s activities, its presence at its place of business, its product range and market demand in accordance with Appendix No. 5 to Regulation No. 254-P and the professional opinion on the borrower’s financial position. The bank concluded that the company was operating at the stated address and actively selling goods online, through online auctions and offline. The bank’s cash-register equipment was also located on the borrower’s premises. The borrower employed four core staff and engaged other specialists under a staff-outsourcing arrangement, while the bank’s owner visited the borrower’s premises daily. The credit analyst’s professional opinion included photographs of the borrower’s current operations, inventory, customers and employees.

3. The duties of a member of the board of directors do not include:

   • signing loan agreements and security transactions;
   • monitoring the correctness of the formation of clients’ credit dossiers;
   • technical work on document preparation.

   Any shortcomings in the loan security documentation cannot be blamed on a member of the board of directors, since these actions are not within the scope of his duties, as confirmed by the Regulations on the board of directors of the bank (internal document of the bank). The Regulations on the Board of Directors do not require members of the bank’s board of directors to monitor the signing of documents by representatives of the bank’s counterparties and other technical work.

4. The borrower’s authorized capital was indeed twice the statutory minimum. However, most duly registered legal entities have authorized capital equal to or only slightly above that threshold. This does not indicate that the borrower’s activities were unlawful and does not prevent the borrower from receiving credit.

5. Regarding the DIA's argument that the borrower's staff consisted of one person, it should be noted that in the case materials there is an agreement for the provision of personnel, which explains why, despite the fact that the borrower actually had 1 person on staff, the borrower repeatedly provided the bank with information that the actual number of its employees was 9 people (as already noted, other specialists were hired by the borrower under an outstaffing agreement). The reality and scope of the borrower’s activities are also evidenced by the following documents:

   • lease agreement for a plot of land measuring 1000 square meters, the rent is 200 thousand rubles per month;
   • lease agreement for non-residential premises, acceptance certificate for the specified agreement;
   • agreement with the advertiser;
   • an agreement on the provision of advertising services on radio, including on radio stations Ultra, Rock FM, Best FM, Nashe Radio, Radio Jazz;
   • contract for communication services;
   • contract for the provision of legal services;
   • website hosting agreement.

6. The issuance of loans by credit institutions is a type of entrepreneurial activity, that is, “activity carried out at one’s own risk” (Article 2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The current legislation does not provide for liability for the very fact of carrying out business activities. Entrepreneurial activity, an integral feature of which is risk, is, by virtue of the provisions of Article 2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a legal activity. At the same time, it should be noted that the legislator has provided for subsidiary liability of members of the management bodies of a legal entity if, in accordance with the procedure established by law, the unreasonableness and bad faith of the members of the management bodies are proven. The unreasonableness and dishonesty of the members of the board of directors in relation to the circumstances of this case could be evidenced by evidence that the members of the board of directors had no basis for lending to the borrower.

   The evidence collected in the case indicates that the members of the debtor’s board of directors, when making positive decisions on lending to the borrower, acted reasonably and in good faith, within the limits of a reasonable business risk.

   The adoption by members of the board of directors of a positive decision to approve the conclusion of agreements with a third party on the provision of a credit line was based on data on a positive credit history, favorable financial condition, and the security of the bank’s interests with a personal guarantee and collateral of movable property. The funds were lent by the debtor to a third party at a rate of 20 percent per annum (plus a 2 percent commission), which was consistent with market conditions. In addition, the borrower has been consistently paying the loan debt and interest for at least six months, the payment of which was not overdue.

7. The basis for attracting members of the board of directors, according to the plaintiff, was their signing of the protocols of the debtor’s board of directors on the approval of credit transactions totaling 45,000,000 rubles.

   The DIA stated that the conclusion of these loan agreements resulted in a deterioration in the financial position of the bank. At the same time, the DIA filed an application to hold members of the bank’s board of directors jointly and severally liable and to recover 827,312,000 rubles from them.

   It is obvious that the bank’s issuance of a loan to the borrower in the amount of 45 million rubles could not result in a shortage of property in the debtor’s bankruptcy estate in the amount of 827,312,000 rubles.

8. According to the provisions of paragraph 20 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 53 [13], if the grounds for bringing to subsidiary liability are not proven, but the unlawful behavior of the defendant is proven, the court makes a decision on compensation for losses by the defendant. It should be noted that reclassification and satisfaction of claims do not occur automatically, but subject to proof of the defendant’s unlawful behavior.

   The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in Resolution No. 53 directly states that the defendant has an obligation to compensate for losses arising through his fault in the amount determined according to the rules of Articles 15 and 393 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

   Thus, in order to impose on members of the bank’s board of directors the obligation to compensate creditors for losses in the amount of funds provided to the borrower under loan agreements, the plaintiff must provide not only evidence of the removal of funds from the debtor’s possession, but also evidence of the unlawful (guilty) behavior of the defendant (lack of grounds for approving transactions), as well as evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship between the defendant’s behavior and the borrower’s failure to repay loan agreements. This set of facts was not proven by the applicant in this case.

9. In the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 22, 2020 No. 307-ES19-18723 in case No. A56-26451/2016 on the bankruptcy of Teplouchet JSC, an important position was formed regarding the possibility of bringing members of the board of directors to subsidiary liability:

   “The status of a member of the board of directors for the purpose of bringing a person to subsidiary liability presupposes the possibility of rendering significant impact on the debtor's activities. At the same time, the approval of a significantly unprofitable transaction by one of the members of the board of directors (or another collegial body) is not in itself sufficient to establish his guilt in the impossibility of repaying the claims of creditors and bringing him to subsidiary liability. The person who initiated such a transaction (within the meaning of paragraph three of paragraph 16 of Resolution No. 53) and (or) received (potential) benefits from its completion is subject to liability. In this regard, it was also necessary to determine the degree of involvement of each of the defendants in the process of withdrawing the debtor’s disputed asset and their awareness of the significant harm caused by these actions to his creditors”.

   Italics and underlining in the source were added by the author, A. Sh.

   The DIA did not prove that members of the board of directors of Kamsky Horizon Bank initiated the conclusion of credit transactions and (or) received personal benefits from them.

   It should be noted that these legal positions were developed in the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 305-ES18-13210 (2) dated October 7, 2021. In particular, the Supreme Court stated the following:

   “The peculiarity of the functioning of credit institutions is that they carry out fairly large-scale activities in the financial market, which necessitates the presence of a significant number of employees on their staff, including in management bodies. At the same time, banking activity in the financial market is strictly and in detail regulated, in particular, a significant number of requirements are imposed on the list of management bodies, as well as on the personnel of the persons included in them (for example, Articles 11.1, 11.1-1 of the Federal Law of December 2, 1990 No. 395-1 “On Banks and Banking Activities”).

   These features of the activities of banks predetermine that in bankruptcy cases, disputes about bringing controlling persons to subsidiary liability are often accompanied by the presence of a large number of defendants. When resolving such disputes, the courts must proceed from the fact that only those persons whose actions directly led to the bankruptcy of the credit organization can be held vicariously liable.

   In determining whether the defendants' conduct caused the debtor's bankruptcy, the following must be taken into account:

   • the defendant’s ability to exert significant influence on the debtor’s activities (which, for example, excludes ordinary employees, middle management, minority shareholders, etc. from the circle of potential defendants, provided that the formal status of these persons corresponds to their role and functions);

   • the exercise by the defendant of the relevant powers has led (is leading) to negative consequences for the debtor and his creditors; the scale of negative consequences correlates with the scale of the debtor’s activities, that is, it is capable of radically changing the structure of his property into a qualitatively different bankrupt state (however, they cannot be recognized as grounds for subsidiary liability of actions to commit, although not profitable, but insignificant in their size and consequences for the debtor of a transaction);

   • the defendant is the initiator (accomplice) of such behavior and (or) a potential beneficiary of the negative consequences arising in connection with this (hereinafter referred to as the criteria; paragraphs 3, 16, 21, 23 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 21, 2017 No. 53 “On some issues related to holding persons controlling the debtor liable in bankruptcy”).

   In relation to criterion No. 2, the qualifying features of transactions, in the presence of which a presumption of leading to bankruptcy can be applied to the controlling person, are the significance of these transactions for the debtor (in relation to the scale of its activities) and at the same time their significant unprofitability in the context of the relationship “debtor (its bankruptcy estate) - creditors", that is, the orientation of the transactions to cause significant harm to creditors through an unreasonable reduction that does not have a reasonable economic justification (encumbrances) of the bankruptcy estate. Such illegal nature of transactions must take place at the time of their completion. At the same time, the unprofitability of a transaction concluded by a controlling person in itself cannot serve as an unconditional confirmation of the existence of grounds for bringing to subsidiary liability.

   When objecting to the plaintiff’s arguments, the defendant has the right to refer to the rule on protecting a business decision, namely, that he acted reasonably and in good faith (clause 3 of Article 53.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Thus, in particular, the completion (approval) of a transaction on the basis of a positive conclusion (recommendation) of the bank’s specialized division (including the credit department) assumes that the defendant’s actions did not deviate from the standards of reasonableness and good faith usually applied in this field of activity. Whereas the plaintiff bears the burden of refuting this presumption by proving, for example, that, based on the essence of the transaction, it was obvious to the defendant that it was extremely unprofitable for creditors, or that the defendant reliably knew about the violation of the principles of objectivity when preparing the transaction conclusion by the specialized department, or at least had incomplete (unreliable) information on the relevant counterparty.

   For this reason, when resolving disputes of this kind, the courts must examine the issue of compliance when concluding transactions with corporate rules and regulations in force in the bank, regulations, and also evaluate the terms of transactions for their unprofitability.

   At the same time, the person controlling the debtor is not subject to subsidiary liability in the case where his actions (inaction), which entailed negative consequences on the side of the debtor, did not go beyond the limits of ordinary business risk and were not aimed at violating the rights and legitimate interests of the civil law community that unites all creditors...”

   These long-awaited clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation will undoubtedly allow members of the boards of directors of banks held vicariously liable by the DIA for issuing “technical” (obviously non-repayable) loans to successfully build their defense based on the criteria specified by the Supreme Court in the case under consideration.

Findings of the trial court

The Arbitration Court of the Republic of Tatarstan in the ruling dated December 1, 2020 (p. 29–32)⁠ basically accepted the defendants’ arguments and indicated the following:

• the transaction for lending to the borrower was completed within the limits of reasonable business risk. The adoption by members of the board of directors of a positive decision to approve the conclusion of agreements with a third party on the provision of a credit line was based on data on a positive credit history, favorable financial condition, and the security of the bank’s interests with a personal guarantee and pledge of movable property;
• the court did not agree with the DIA’s argument that debt under loan agreements in the amount of 30,030,000 rubles could lead to the insolvency (bankruptcy) of the debtor if the bank’s authorized capital was in the amount of 260,000,000 rubles;
• lending to the borrower by the debtor was beneficial for the bank, therefore, the members of the board of directors, when deciding to lend to the borrower, acted in good faith in the interests of the bank;
• Analyzing the activities of the borrower, the court came to the conclusion that during the period of validity of the loan agreements the borrower conducted real business activities.

In addition, on pages 40–44⁠ the ruling of the trial court describes an interesting business model using the Auto Deposit product, which was used by CarPrice and IAuto, which may be of independent interest to readers.

By Resolution 11 of the Arbitration Court of Appeal dated February 18, 2021, the said court ruling in the case of the Kamsky Horizon Bank was left unchanged⁠ .

By the Resolution of the Volga Arbitration Court of Cassation dated May 27, 2021 the ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Tatarstan dated December 1, 2020 and the ruling of the Eleventh Arbitration Court of Appeal dated February 18, 2021 in case No. A65-28276/2016 regarding the refusal to engage Evgeniy Vladimirovich Popov and Natalya Vladimirovna Polovinko’s subsidiary liability for the obligations of the limited liability company “Commercial Bank “Kama Horizon” was cancelled⁠ . Since the judicial acts of the first and appellate instances regarding Volkov A.O., Lutfullin I.I. and Rodionova T.M. were left unchanged, and in relation to Popov E.V. and Polovinko N.V. were sent for a new trial to the court of first instance, which, as of the date of publication of this article, had not issued a judicial act, this article does not analyze the reasons for the partial cancellation of past judicial acts and the consideration of the dispute in the canceled part in a new round.

Recommendations to members of the boards of directors of banks subject to subsidiary liability

Members of the boards of directors of banks held vicariously liable for the latter’s debts must check the following:

1. whether the person was actually on the board of directors that approved the controversial transactions;

2. whether the defendant took part in meetings of the board of directors that approved the controversial transactions;

3. whether the defendant voted to approve the disputed transactions;

4. whether the defendant’s original signatures appear on the protocols (ballots) approving the disputed transactions;

5. whether the approved transactions could have caused the bankruptcy of the bank;

6. whether the defendant was the initiator of the approved transactions or their beneficiary.

When voting “for” the approval of certain transactions, a member of the board of directors is recommended to:

1. check the competence of the board of directors and the powers of a member of the board of directors, recorded in the internal documents of the bank, such as the Regulations on the board of directors and the job description of a member of the board of directors;

2. keep copies of these documents for each member of the board of directors. Subsequently, these documents can help determine the competence of the board of directors, the powers of a member of the board of directors, the procedure for making decisions on the approval of credit transactions, as well as the fact that a member of the board of directors is not responsible for the correct maintenance of the credit file, the preparation and conclusion of loan security transactions, etc.;

3. check the availability of all necessary documents required for lending to the borrower:

   • professional judgment about the level of credit risk;
   • conclusion of the legal service;
   • conclusion of the security service;
   • other documents.

4. keep copies of documents for each approved loan with each member of the board of directors. Subsequently, these documents can help prove that a member of the board of directors made a decision to approve a loan transaction based on the positive conclusions of the credit department, legal service, security service and other services of the bank.

FOOTNOTES

1. See: Fedresurs statistical bulletin as of June 30, 2020 (pp. 23); bulletin as of June 30, 2021; Fedresurs bankruptcy statistics for 2019 (pp. 25–29). Bulletin as of June 30, 2021 ↩
2. Case No. A65-28276/2016 ↩
3. Judgment of the Commercial Court of the Republic of Tatarstan dated January 16, 2017 ↩
4. Trial court ruling dated December 1, 2020, pp. 29–32 ↩
5. The same ruling, pp. 40–44 ↩
6. Judgment of the Eleventh Commercial Court of Appeal dated February 18, 2021 ↩
7. Judgment of the Commercial Court of the Volga District dated May 27, 2021 ↩

INFORMATION SOURCES

1. Fedresurs statistical bulletin as of June 30, 2020
2. Fedresurs statistical bulletin as of June 30, 2021
3. Case No. A65-28276/2016 in the Russian commercial courts database
4. Fedresurs bankruptcy proceedings statistics for 2019
5. Judgment of the Commercial Court of the Republic of Tatarstan dated January 16, 2017 in case No. A65-28276/2016
6. On insolvency (bankruptcy): Federal Law of October 26, 2002 No. 127-FZ. Access from the ConsultantPlus legal reference system.
7. On the procedure for credit institutions to form reserves for possible losses on loans, on loan and equivalent debt: Regulations of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation dated March 26, 2004 No. 254-P. Access from the ConsultantPlus legal reference system.
8. On limited liability companies: Federal Law of February 8, 1998 No. 14-FZ. Access from the ConsultantPlus legal reference system.
9. Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part One): Federal Law of November 30, 1994 No. 51-FZ. Access from the ConsultantPlus legal reference system.
10. On the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (Bank of Russia): Federal Law of July 10, 2002 No. 86-FZ. Access from the ConsultantPlus legal reference system.
11. On the application by courts of certain provisions of section one of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation: Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 23, 2015 No. 25. Access from the ConsultantPlus reference legal system.
12. On some issues of compensation for losses by persons who are members of the bodies of a legal entity, Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 30, 2013 No. 62. Access from the ConsultantPlus reference legal system.
13. On some issues related to holding persons controlling the debtor liable in bankruptcy: Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 21, 2017 No. 53. Access from the ConsultantPlus reference legal system.
14. Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 22, 2020 No. 307-ES19-18723 in case No. A56-26451/2016. Access from the ConsultantPlus legal reference system.
15. Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of October 7, 2021 No. 305-ES18-13210 (2). Access from the ConsultantPlus legal reference system.
16. Ruling of the Commercial Court of the Republic of Tatarstan dated December 1, 2020
17. Judgment of the Eleventh Commercial Court of Appeal dated February 18, 2021
18. Judgment of the Commercial Court of the Volga District dated May 27, 2021

ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

Full article in PDF

The original publication is preserved with its source formatting and author’s notes.

[ Download PDF ]