Transfer of Documents Upon Change of Director in Russia

 

October 12, 2022

BRACE Law Firm ©

 

Upon termination of the powers of the head of a legal entity, it is necessary to properly organize the transfer of documents, including incorporation, internal, accounting, and other documents. Specifically, pursuant to Clause 4, Article 29 of Federal Law No. 402-FZ dated December 6, 2011, On Accounting (the "Accounting Law"), upon a change of the organization's head, the transfer of the organization's accounting documents must be ensured.

Russian legislation does not explicitly regulate the procedure for document transfer. However, it should be noted that the failure to transfer the organization's documents may result in serious legal risks for the director. These risks are associated with the potential liability in the form of recovery of damages, as well as the existence of a special ground for subsidiary liability in the event of the company's bankruptcy.

Which Documents Must Be Kept in the Organization and Transferred Upon Change of Director?

Let us begin with the question: what documents must be kept in the organization? Taking a limited liability company as an example, under Article 50 of Federal Law No. 14-FZ dated February 8, 1998, On Limited Liability Companies (the "LLC Law"), the company is obliged to store documents at the location of its executive body or in another place known and accessible to the company's participants. The company must store documents prescribed by federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, the company's charter, internal documents, decisions of the general meeting of participants, the board of directors (supervisory board), and executive bodies of the company.

A limited liability company must provide a participant with access to the following documents upon demand:

• The agreement on the establishment of the company (except for the establishment of the company by a single person), the decision on the establishment of the company, the company's charter approved by the founders (participants), as well as amendments and additions thereto registered in the prescribed manner;
• Protocol(s) of the meeting of the company's founders containing the decision to create the company and approve the monetary valuation of non-monetary contributions to the authorized capital, as well as other decisions related to the company's creation;
• The document confirming the state registration of the company;
• Internal documents of the company;
• Regulations on branches and representative offices of the company;
• The decision on the issuance (additional issuance) of securities, amendments to the decision on the issuance (additional issuance) of securities, the report on the results of the issuance (additional issuance) of securities, the notification on the results of the issuance (additional issuance) of securities;
• Protocols of general meetings of the company's participants, meetings of the company's audit commission;
• Lists of the company's affiliated persons;
• Opinions of the audit commission (auditor) of the company, the external auditor, and state and municipal financial control bodies;
• Judicial decisions on disputes related to the creation of the company, its management, or participation therein, as well as judicial acts on such disputes, including rulings on the initiation of proceedings by an arbitration court and acceptance of a statement of claim or statement regarding a change in the grounds or subject of a previously filed claim;
• Protocols of meetings of the board of directors (supervisory board) and the collective executive body of the company;
• Agreements (unilateral transactions) that are major transactions and/or interested-party transactions;
• Other documents prescribed by federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, the company's charter, internal documents, decisions of the general meeting of participants, the board of directors (supervisory board), and executive bodies of the company.

As is known, pursuant to Clause 4, Article 32 and Article 40 of the LLC Law, the current activities of the company are managed by the sole executive body of the company. To exercise their powers, the director has access to all documentation related to the company's activities and, as its executive body, is responsible for the preservation of documents. Thus, as a general rule, the company's documentation is stored by its executive body, and in the event of a change thereof, such person has an obligation to transfer the documentation to the newly appointed director. A similar provision is contained in Article 89 of the On Joint-Stock Companies [1]. In general, the requirements for documenting the transfer, both in an LLC and a JSC, are similar. However, it is worth noting the existence of a special regulatory act — the Regulation on the Procedure and Terms of Storage of Documents of Joint-Stock Companies—which governs the procedure for accounting and storage of documents in a JSC [2].

The organization of document storage is ensured by its sole executive body. The organization of storage of documents generated in the activities of structural subdivisions of the company, prior to their transfer to the archive, is ensured by the heads of such structural subdivisions. The requirements for storing documentation related to the activities of state authorities, local self-government bodies, and organizations are established by Order of Rosarkhiv No. 236 dated December 20, 2019 [3].

The list of documentation subject to storage is named in Part 1, Article 50 of the LLC Law. It appears that, at a minimum, documents required to be stored by Russian legislation are subject to transfer to the new director upon a change of director.

When assessing the identity of the document storage location at the company and with the company's director, the following should be considered. Although the provisions of the LLC Law imply that the company's obligation to store documents (absent other agreement) is carried out at the location of the executive body, the mere fact that the director holds the status of an executive body does not indicate that such documents are in their possession. In particular, this applies to accounting documents.

In accordance with Clause 1, Article 7 of the Accounting Law, the maintenance of accounting records and the storage of accounting documents are organized by the head of the economic entity. Based on Article 29 of the Accounting Law, primary accounting documents, accounting registers, accounting (financial) statements, and auditor's reports thereon are subject to storage by the economic entity for periods established in accordance with the rules of organizing state archival affairs, but not less than 5 (five) years after the reporting year. The economic entity must ensure safe conditions for storing accounting documents and their protection from changes. Upon a change of the organization's head, the transfer of the organization's accounting documents must be ensured. The organization determines the procedure for transferring accounting documents independently.

Thus, the sole executive body, upon release from office, bears the final obligation to ensure the transfer of the company's documentation and property.

At the same time, when applying to court with a demand for the transfer of documentation, the plaintiff must present evidence that the disputed documents were in the defendant's possession during the period they exercised the powers of the company's director, and the defendant must prove the transfer of said documents to the new director. However, to satisfy the stated claim, the court must also investigate the issue of their actual presence with the person against whom the demands to transfer documents are brought, as a judicial act obliging the transfer of documents not in the person's possession will not possess the attributes of enforceability [4].

Proving the circumstances of the former director's possession of the company's documentation constitutes the main subject of proof in lawsuits regarding document transfer claims. In addition to the fact that the documents were present during the period the former director exercised the powers of the sole executive body, to satisfy the claim, it is necessary to prove the actual presence of such documents with the defendant at the time the decision is rendered to ensure the enforceability of the issued judicial act [5].

When considering a dispute, courts should determine the degree of specification of the list of documents subject to transfer and assess the possibility of document transfer by the former director based on objective factors, establishing the existence of an obligation for the latter regarding each item [6].

Procedure for Transferring Documents Upon Change of Director

The legislation does not explicitly regulate the procedure for transferring documents upon a change of director. This circumstance leads to judicial acts that interpret the distribution of the burden of proof between the parties differently.

Thus, in considering a specific case, the courts noted that the absence of a transfer and acceptance act for all company documents does not in itself indicate their absence with the plaintiff (new director) and presence with the defendant (former director), since neither legislation nor the charter establishes a special procedure for transferring documents in connection with a change of director. When considering the case, the courts established that the case file lacked evidence indicating that the defendant possessed the requested documents and was unreasonably and intentionally evading their transfer [7].

Given the adversarial principle and the obligation to transfer company documentation, it is the former manager who bears the obligation to provide explanations regarding the claims presented, in particular, regarding the fact of the absence of the requested documentation in their possession, as well as the reasons for such absence. At the same time, when considering claims for the recovery of documents from a former director, courts take into account the former director's explanations regarding the absence of specific documents in their possession, and the possibility of obtaining documents from other sources (for example, tax authorities) [8].

Thus, when considering specific cases, courts must establish the entire complex of circumstances. The distribution of the burden of proof regarding the fact of transfer or failure to transfer documents will depend on the establishment of specific circumstances. This position is confirmed by the practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation [9].

In accordance with Clause 4, Article 29 of the Accounting Law, upon a change of the organization's head, the transfer of the organization's accounting documents must be ensured. Thus, the legislation does not contain specific instructions regarding the procedure for the transfer of documents by the former head of the company and does not establish an imperative requirement for the form in which such transfer occurs.

In this regard, arguments that the former head must transfer all documents by drawing up a transfer and acceptance act listing each document by name do not comply with the legislation and do not correspond to the nature of the economic entity's activities, which inherently implies a multitude of documents, the volume of which does not allow for their individual transfer.

However, upon completion of their powers, the head of the organization is obliged to transfer affairs, which includes the obligation to return all documents to the Company if they are for some reason with the former head rather than at the legal entity's location. The form of transfer, if not expressly regulated by the charter, a corporate agreement concluded between all participants, or the agreement with the head, depends on the specific circumstances of the case (volume of documentation, type of documentation, document flow rules adopted in the relevant organization or actually observed).

The form of transfer, if not expressly regulated by the charter, a corporate agreement concluded between all participants, or the agreement with the head, depends on the specific circumstances of the case (volume of documentation, type of documentation, document flow rules adopted in the relevant organization or actually observed) [10]. These positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation mean that when a former director transfers documents, the compilation of a transfer and acceptance act containing the name of each document is not presumed.

In the event of a lawsuit for the recovery of documents, the plaintiff proves the fact that the defendant possesses specific documents and is withholding them, while the defendant proves the fact of their transfer. Under such circumstances, the absence of a specific list in the transfer and acceptance act can significantly complicate proving the fact of transfer or failure to transfer specific documents.

Courts point to the necessity of conducting an inventory check upon a change of directors to confirm the fact of transfer or incomplete transfer of documents and inventory items. The failure to conduct an inventory check may be used in court in the future as an argument that the new director did not object to the volume of transferred documents and inventory items. However, absent the reflection of a particular operation in the reporting and upon concealment of certain documents by the previous director, the latter cannot, in principle, be discovered during an inventory check.

Legal Consequences of Failure to Transfer Documents

When considering the consequences of a director's failure to transfer documents, the following general consequences should be highlighted.

1. First and foremost, the possibility of filing a lawsuit to recover un-transferred documents. The filing of a lawsuit to recover documents from a former director does not in itself carry negative consequences. However, the circumstances established within such a case, namely the establishment of the fact of transfer or failure to transfer documents, including the composition of such documentation, may be used in the future in other cases (for example, in the recovery of damages or attraction to subsidiary liability in the event of the company's bankruptcy).

2. Infliction of damages (outside of bankruptcy proceedings). Analyzing the possibility of recovering damages from a former director outside of bankruptcy proceedings for failure to transfer documents (complete or partial), it is worth noting that such a possibility exists. Recovery of damages for failure to transfer documents is possible if there is damage to the company resulting from such failure to transfer. In particular, when, as a result of the absence of such transfer, the new director was unaware of operations to withdraw the company's assets.

In a specific case [11], having established the absence of legal grounds for transferring part of the funds due to the absence of supporting documents, and upon establishing the fact of failure to transfer documents confirming such expenditure to the newly appointed director, the courts concluded that the plaintiff had not confirmed the fact of expenditure of funds on behalf of the company. This indicates the bad faith of the company's head, who received the company's funds without legal grounds, and, as a consequence, proof of the fact of infliction of damages on the company in the indicated amounts.

3. Challenging transactions concluded by the legal entity. If documentation substantiating the fact of a monetary transaction is not transferred, the transfer transaction may be challenged even if such an agreement is not presented to the court. Moreover, the fact of failure to transfer such documents by the previous director may become an additional ground for challenging the transaction in principle.

In a specific case, asserting the invalidity of a service agreement, the company claimed that by executing the disputed agreement without the approval of this transaction by the general meeting of the company's participants, the director baselessly withdrew money from the company, thereby causing it damage. That is, the plaintiff stated the invalidity of the agreement from the perspective of assessing the head's actions. However, having established the absence of the disputed agreement in the case file, the lower courts did not give a proper legal assessment of the director's actions, refusing to satisfy the claims. Sending the case for a new trial, the court of cassation indicated that the plaintiff stated that they could not present the disputed agreement because all copies remained with the former director, who acted on behalf of both the customer and the contractor simultaneously and who is not interested in providing it to the court. When considering the case, the courts of two instances did not ascertain whether the company's documents were transferred in the prescribed manner upon the change of management, or whether the new director had claims against the former head regarding the transfer of company documents. The courts refused to satisfy the plaintiff's claim citing the absence of the disputed agreement in the case file; however, it does not appear from the case file that the courts proposed that the defendant present the disputed agreement, as well as evidence of its performance (for example, acts of services rendered or other documents showing the substance and quality of services), nor did they ascertain the reasons for the failure to present the requested documents by the party [12].

Transfer of Documents Upon Bankruptcy of a Legal Entity

The procedure for transferring documents during bankruptcy is provided for by special bankruptcy legislation. By virtue of Clause 3.2, Article 64 of Federal Law No. 127-FZ dated October 26, 2002, On Insolvency (Bankruptcy) (the "Bankruptcy Law"), no later than 15 days from the date of approval of the temporary manager, the debtor's head is obliged to provide the temporary manager and send to the arbitration court considering the bankruptcy case a list of the debtor's property, including property rights, as well as accounting and other documents reflecting the debtor's economic activity for three years prior to the introduction of supervision. The debtor's head is obliged to inform the temporary manager and the arbitration court considering the bankruptcy case monthly about changes in the composition of the debtor's property.

As explained in Clause 47 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 35 [13], in the event of refusal or evasion by the debtor's head to transfer documents to the temporary manager, the latter has the right to apply to the court considering the bankruptcy case with a motion to recover them (in this case, copies of documents certified by the debtor's head are requested for the temporary manager).

A feature of requesting documentation regarding the debtor within the supervision procedure is the fact that the debtor company continues its economic activity. Based on the subject of the dispute, a specific list of requested documents must be established and evidence presented of their presence with the person against whom the demands to transfer them are brought, since a judicial act obliging the transfer of documents absent from the person cannot possess the attributes of enforceability (Article 16 of the APC RF), which may create a threat of unjustified prosecution.

From the cumulative interpretation of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Law defining the range of duties and powers of the temporary manager, considering that, as a general rule, the debtor has the right to continue its economic activity during supervision, the obligation of the debtor's head regarding the temporary manager cannot be interpreted exclusively as an obligation to transfer all debtor documentation or copies thereof to the manager, but rather consists of providing the temporary manager with a list of property, as well as debtor documentation in the volume necessary for the manager to perform the duties assigned to them (analysis of the debtor's financial and economic activity, verification of signs of deliberate bankruptcy).

Only if the debtor's management bodies obstruct the manager's access to its documentation or do not provide the manager with necessary documents and information, does the temporary manager, as explained in Clause 47 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 35 [14], have the right to apply to the court considering the bankruptcy case with a motion to recover them.

Grounds for refusal to satisfy a motion for the recovery of material assets and documents may serve, in particular:

• the fact of providing documents and material assets confirmed by documents;
• presentation of evidence indicating the adoption of all necessary measures for the timely transfer of documents and assets;
• presentation of evidence confirming the absence of the requested documents and assets with the former head of the debtor [15].

According to the second paragraph of Clause 2, Article 126 of the Bankruptcy Law, the debtor's head, as well as the temporary manager, administrative manager, and external manager, are obliged to ensure the transfer of accounting and other documentation of the debtor, seals, stamps, material and other assets to the bankruptcy trustee within three days from the date of approval of the bankruptcy trustee. That is, from the moment bankruptcy proceedings (receivership) are introduced, due to the termination of the director's powers, the originals of documents must be transferred to the bankruptcy trustee.

Since the method of protecting a right must correspond to the nature of the violation committed, a lawsuit to compel the performance of an obligation provided for by Clause 2, Article 126 of the Bankruptcy Law is admissible in a situation where the former head of the debtor evades participation in the transfer of property to the bankruptcy trustee, possession of which the debtor has not lost, or creates obstacles to access such property by withholding keys to the cash register, safe, warehouse, etc.

If the disputed property was illegally received by the former head of the debtor and is in their possession, then general methods of protection apply—a lawsuit to recognize the transaction under which the debtor transferred property to the head as invalid and to apply the consequences of its invalidity in the form of the return of this property, a vindication claim, etc. [16].

The arbitration manager has the right to demand from the head (as well as from other persons who have the relevant documents) in court the performance of this obligation in kind pursuant to the rules of Article 308 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. When applying to the court with a statement to oblige the transfer of documents, it is sufficient for the arbitration manager to present arguments regarding the non-performance of the corresponding obligation by the head. Taking into account Article 65 of the APC RF, the burden of refuting the arbitration manager's arguments lies with the former head of the debtor. The grounds for refusing to satisfy such a statement may be the fact of the transfer of documents and material assets.

This distribution of the burden of proof is due to the fact that under Article 32 of the LLC Law, as well as the Accounting Law, the current activities of the company are managed by the sole executive body of the company, whose duties include organizing and maintaining accounting records and storing accounting documents, as well as other documents [17].

When a creditor files a lawsuit for the debtor to perform an obligation in kind, the court, based on the specific circumstances of the case, determines whether such performance is objectively possible [18].

Resolving the issue of the admissibility of compelling the debtor to perform an obligation in kind, the court takes into account not only the provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, other laws, or the contract, but also the essence of the relevant obligation. Within the meaning of said norms and explanations, the court may recover documents from the head or another person only in the event of confirmation of the fact that these documents are with said person [19].

In bankruptcy, the recovery of documents is often complicated by the fact of repeated changes of directors on the eve of bankruptcy, which implies the need to investigate issues regarding the transfer of documentation from one director to another.

Subsidiary Liability Within Bankruptcy for Failure to Transfer Documents

Failure to transfer documentation in the event of an organization's bankruptcy appears to be a risky decision. The Bankruptcy Law contains a separate ground for attracting to subsidiary liability for failure to transfer documents to the manager. According to Clause 2, Article 126 of the Bankruptcy Law, from the date the arbitration court adopts a decision to recognize the debtor as bankrupt, the powers of the debtor's head and other management bodies are terminated. The debtor's head is obliged to ensure the transfer of accounting and other documentation of the debtor to the manager within 3 days from the date of approval of the bankruptcy trustee.

The named obligation to transfer documents is based, in essence, on the fact of termination by virtue of law of corporate relations between the economic entity (the debtor) and the citizen performing the functions of the sole executive body. These relations are an integral part of the procedure for transferring the powers of a legal entity's body from one subject to another.

The obligation to transfer documents to the bankruptcy trustee follows by virtue of law. Moreover, the fact of failure to transfer such documentation creates a presumption of the director's guilt when resolving the issue of attracting to subsidiary liability.

In accordance with Clause 24 of Resolution No. 53, a causal link in driving to bankruptcy is presumed in the event of failure to transfer, concealment, loss, or distortion of documentation by the debtor's head, as well as by other persons who actually possess the documentation. That is, the fact of failure to transfer (incomplete transfer) of documentation to the manager creates a presumption of the director's guilt and imposes on them the burden of refuting said presumption.

The manager must present explanations to the court regarding how the absence of documents influenced the conduct of bankruptcy procedures, and the person being held liable has the right to refute the named presumption by proving that the deficiencies in the documentation presented to the manager did not lead to a substantial difficulty in conducting bankruptcy procedures, or by proving the absence of guilt in the failure to transfer or improper storage of documentation. In this context, substantial difficulty in conducting bankruptcy procedures is understood as, in particular, the inability to determine and identify the debtor's main assets. The mentioned presumption of the existence of a causal link cannot be applied if the necessary documentation (information) was transferred to the arbitration manager during the court's consideration of the application for attraction to subsidiary liability.

At the same time, the mere fact of failure to transfer documentation cannot in itself constitute grounds for attraction to subsidiary liability. It is necessary to establish that the failure to transfer specific documents substantially hindered the conduct of the bankruptcy procedure and the formation of the bankruptcy estate [20].

At the same time, both previously and currently, a presumption has operated according to which the absence (failure to transfer by the head to the arbitration manager) of financial and other documentation of the debtor, substantially hindering the conduct of procedures applied in the bankruptcy case, indicates the head's guilt.

The meaning of this presumption is that the head, by destroying, distorting, or performing other manipulations with the named documentation, conceals data on the debtor's economic activity. It is assumed that the purpose of such concealment is likely to deprive the arbitration manager and bankruptcy creditors of the opportunity to establish facts of bad faith performance by the head or other controlling persons of their duties towards the debtor. These may include, in particular, information on the conclusion of knowingly disadvantageous transactions, asset stripping, etc., which in itself allows for the application of another presumption of subsidiary liability. Furthermore, the absence of a certain type of documentation hinders the filling of the bankruptcy estate, for example, through the recovery of accounts receivable or the return of illegally alienated property.

This is precisely why it is assumed that the failure to transfer documentation indicates the existence of a causal link between the head's actions and the impossibility of satisfying creditors' claims.

However, when the transfer of documentation becomes impossible due to objective factors outside the director's sphere of control, the corresponding presumption cannot be applied.

Upon seizure of the debtor's documentation by law enforcement agencies, an objective impossibility arises for the head to perform the obligation to transfer it to the arbitration manager. This, in turn, excludes the possibility of the court satisfying the demand for performance in kind of the obligation provided for by the second paragraph of Clause 2, Article 126 of the Bankruptcy Law [21].

In the context of a specific case, the director relied specifically on the existence of such objective obstacles when this separate dispute was considered. In particular, she drew attention to the fact that the case file contained her request to the Department of Economic Security and Anti-Corruption of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, as well as the response of the above-mentioned body, according to which the defendant's powers as the debtor's head were terminated, due to which information on investigative actions could not be provided to her. The defendant also drew attention to the fact that during the seizure of documents by investigative bodies, copies of the seizure protocol were not issued [22].

The presumptions established by Subclauses 2 and 4, Clause 2, Article 61.11 of the Bankruptcy Law cannot be applied to the debtor's head if the necessary documentation (information) was transferred by them to the arbitration manager during the court's consideration of the application for attraction to subsidiary liability. Such transfer of documentation (information) does not exclude the possibility of holding the head liable in the form of reimbursement of damages caused by the delay in performing the obligation, or to subsidiary liability on other grounds.

At the same time, in the event of a delay in transferring documentation, the former director may be held liable in the form of recovery of damages if, as a result of such delay, the recovery of accounts receivable proves impossible due to the expiration of limitation periods.

The mere failure of the previous head to transfer necessary documents to the new one does not exempt the latter from liability and does not indicate an absence of guilt. A good faith and reasonable head is obliged to take actions to recover documentation from the previous head or to restore documentation by other means (in particular, by sending requests for duplicate documents to competent authorities, interacting with counterparties to restore primary documentation, etc.) [23].

Thus, a violation of the procedure for transferring documentation upon the company's bankruptcy threatens the risk of attraction to subsidiary liability in the amount of creditors' claims included in the register and not settled during the realization of the bankruptcy estate.

In conclusion, it must be noted that since the legislation does not contain direct requirements for documenting the transfer of documentation upon a change of director, it is advisable to document such transfer based on transfer and acceptance acts, as well as to insist on conducting an inventory check, which will reflect the fact of the transfer of such documentation and its storage location with the transfer of access to such place to the new director, and will also record the absence of claims by the new director regarding the transfer procedure and lack of access.

____________________________

References

[1] Federal Law No. 208-FZ dated December 26, 1995, On Joint-Stock Companies.

[2] Resolution of the Federal Commission for the Securities Market of the Russian Federation No. 03-33/ps dated July 16, 2003, On Approval of the Regulation on the Procedure and Terms of Storage of Documents of Joint-Stock Companies.

[3] Order of Rosarkhiv No. 236 dated December 20, 2019, On Approval of the List of Standard Management Archival Documents Generated in the Course of Activities of State Bodies, Local Self-Government Bodies, and Organizations, Indicating Their Storage Periods.

[4] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District dated October 5, 2021, No. F09-7128/21.

[5] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District dated August 31, 2022, No. F02-4028/2022.

[6] Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 22, 2019, No. 306-ES19-2986.

[7] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated April 6, 2022, No. A40-131042/2021.

[8] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District dated September 4, 2022, No. F03-3875/2022.

[9] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 9, 2022, No. 307-ES22-5640.

[10] Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 9, 2022, No. 307-ES22-5640 in case No. A26-507/2021.

[11] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District dated May 16, 2022, No. A70-14118/2021.

[12] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District dated July 14, 2022, No. F10-1880/2022 in case No. A83-14275/2020.

[13] Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 35 dated June 22, 2012, On Certain Procedural Issues Associated with the Consideration of Bankruptcy Cases.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District dated February 17, 2022, No. F03-262/2022 in case No. A73-14903/2020.

[16] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 12, 2020, No. 302-ES20-10575, dated October 8, 2020, No. 305-ES20-1476.

[17] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga District dated July 19, 2022, No. F06-10803/2021 in case No. A65-19834/2020.

[18] Clause 22 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 7 dated March 24, 2016, On the Application by Courts of Certain Provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on Liability for Violation of Obligations.

[19] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District dated March 1, 2022, No. F10-257/2022 in case No. A14-3383/2021.

[20] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 19, 2021, No. 305-ES21-4666.

[21] Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 22, 2019, No. 306-ES19-2986.

[22] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 30, 2019, No. 305-ES19-10079.

[23] Clause 24 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 53 dated December 21, 2017, On Certain Issues Related to Attracting Persons Controlling the Debtor to Liability in Bankruptcy.