The purpose of the Director to file for bankruptcy the company headed by him — to pass it on to creditors and counterparties about the deplorable financial condition of the debtor. If the latter was aware of this from public sources, the Director shall not be held responsible for not paying the court. To such conclusion the Supreme court (SC), refusing to bring the Director of JSC “goszemkadastrsyemka”-visage to vicarious liability. According to lawyers, the Supreme court has taken a step in the direction of an informal approach to the consideration of such cases, but to talk about easing judicial practice prematurely.The Supreme court has considered the question — should the last Director of the company to answer for its debts, if he withdrew the debtor’s application for bankruptcy filed by the previous head of the legal entity (see “Kommersant” on 19 June). We are talking about the case of Gary Prilutsky, the last Director of JSC “goszemkadastrsyemka”-visage, which was declared bankrupt in November 2017. The suit against him filed by the bankruptcy Trustee.Arbitration courts of three instances satisfied the requirements and brought the Director to vicarious liability, arguing that he did not comply with the obligations of filing Declaration of insolvency of the debtor. The signs of insolvency of JSC appeared in 2012, and the Declaration of bankruptcy was filed in August 2014, her previous Manager (was brought to vicarious liability). It was accepted by the court, but became the new Director of Gary Prilutsky by the decision of the Board of Directors in October 2014, has withdrawn the statement. The complaint of Gary Prilutsky was transferred to economcally sun, which overruled the lower courts and dismissed the claim for vicarious liability. Sun noted that the unconverted Director in court with the statement for bankruptcy of the company implies a dishonest concealment from creditors information about the difficult financial situation of the debtor. At the same time, pointed out the Board must be a causal connection between the deception of counterparties of the company in the form of “deliberate default on the occurrence of signs of bankruptcy” and “negative consequences for the deluded creditors.”However, the previous Director has filed a Declaration of bankruptcy of AO, and two days before the opinion this statement by Mr. Prilutsky the court entered the creditor’s application on recognition of the company bankrupt. Information about this was published in the public system, “arbitration proceedings”. Therefore, concluded the armed forces, Mr. Prilutsky “not any obligation for applying for recognition of debtor bankrupt”. Lawyer AB “Andrey Gorodissky and partners” Dmitry Yakushev welcomed the decision of the SC. He believes the correct position that the last Director is not required to file for bankruptcy tocompany, when it has done the previous head. Senior partner KA Pen & Paper Valery Zinchenko also generally agree with the conclusion entirely, “since a bankruptcy was disclosed and brought to the attention of creditors.” “In such a situation the involvement of the Director to vicarious liability was of a formal nature and did not take into account the circumstances of this particular case,”— added Mr Yakushev.However, the KA partner of “Yukov and partners” Svetlana Tarnopol’skaya notes that at the time of the bankruptcy petition Mr. Prilutsky bankruptcy case at the request of the creditor was not yet instituted, “so this step of the Director could be evaluated as introduction lenders misled in relation to the financial position of the debtor”. In her opinion, the reasons for hiring a Director is still there, but the size of responsibility would likely have been zero. Dmitry Yakushev indicates that the courts, in principle, did not establish the existence of transactions entered into after inauguration of Gary Prilutsky, namely the size of the new obligations of the AO would determine the size of subsidiary responsibility of the Director, but did not at this concentration.Tarnopol’skaya Svetlana sees the position of the aircraft “General course on changing the formal approach to the consideration of such disputes.” This is indicated by Valery Zinchenko: “given the General trend for the total tightening of the vicarious liability of controlling persons is to assess the informality of the approach of the sun”. The lawyer believes that the softening of the position of the court in such cases to speak still early.The arbitral panel
