PDF · Download the court order dated 12 August 2026Case A41-105253/2024 · 5 pages · original judicial act in RussianFailure to hand over documents and personal bankruptcy: the facts
The Commercial Court of Moscow Region’s order sets out the earlier proceedings. The former director had been held subsidiarily liable in the bankruptcy of IKS-wood LLC. The court links that liability to the failure to hand over accounting and other documentation, tangible assets and other company property.
| Date | Event described in the order | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| 25 October 2021 | Grounds for subsidiary liability were established in case A23-1147/2016; determination of its amount was stayed | The liability arose in separate corporate bankruptcy proceedings |
| 6 March 2023 | RUB 136,378,922.78 was awarded under subsidiary liability | The amount included RUB 127,051,841.57 in registered claims and RUB 9,327,081.21 in current obligations |
| 22 December 2025 | The individual was declared bankrupt; the claim was entered in the individual’s register of creditors | Discharge was subsequently considered in personal bankruptcy |
| 30 July / 12 August 2026 | The operative part was announced / the written order completing asset realization was issued | The court expressly discharged the subsidiary liability obligation |
RUB 136,378,922.78 is the amount awarded in the earlier judicial act. It is not a fee calculation, a success statistic or a promise of a result for another debtor. The order also records substitution of the tax authority as creditor for RUB 44,481,409.01 of the claim.
How the court applied paragraph 58 of the Supreme Court Review
Article 213.28(6) of the Bankruptcy Law includes subsidiary liability among obligations that survive bankruptcy. Completion alone therefore does not resolve discharge: separate analysis is required.
The court relied on paragraph 58 of the Review of Judicial Practice in Personal Bankruptcy Cases, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court on 18 June 2025. This is a Review, rather than a Plenum resolution. The explanation permits discharge of obligations covered by paragraph 6 where harm was caused without intent or gross negligence and the debtor acted in good faith during bankruptcy.
In our case, the court noted the absence of evidence of false information, concealment or destruction of property. Bad faith, concealment of assets and failure to provide information during personal bankruptcy had not been established. Considering the specific facts and bankruptcy’s rehabilitative function, the court granted discharge, including the subsidiary liability debt.
The operative part expressly grants discharge
The operative part completed the realization of the individual’s assets and discharged creditors’ claims, expressly including the obligation arising from subsidiary liability in the bankruptcy of IKS-wood LLC.
This is an order completing asset realization, rather than a judgment reversing the original finding of liability. Liability had already been established; the later order addressed further performance of that obligation.
- Corporate proceedingsThe basis and amount of subsidiary liability were established earlier.
- Personal bankruptcyThe debtor requested discharge of this obligation as well.
- Conduct assessmentThe court applied paragraph 58 and considered conduct during the procedure.
- Operative partThe subsidiary liability obligation was expressly discharged.
Significant practice with limits
For me, the significance lies in applying the Supreme Court explanation to liability for failing to provide documents. This judicial act allows a concrete discussion of the basis of liability, the court’s reasoning and its operative conclusion.
The attached order, however, does not contain a detailed, independent examination of every circumstance in which liability arose or of culpability in the documentation failure. It would be wrong to add findings that documents were accidentally lost, that particular exculpatory facts were proved, or that all liability for failure to hand over records is now dischargeable.
I continue to collect evidence: how carefully courts distinguish ordinary from gross negligence, how they treat findings in the original liability decision and what happens on appeal. There is currently no basis here for an unconditional prediction in another case.
Documents to compare in a similar case
- Judicial acts establishing the basis and amount of subsidiary liability, including findings on conduct and causation.
- The order entering the claim in the personal bankruptcy register.
- Evidence of the debtor’s conduct during bankruptcy and responses to requests for information.
- The discharge request, creditors’ objections and their supporting evidence.
- The operative part of the final order and subsequent appellate and cassation proceedings.
The general framework is explained in subsidiary liability in personal bankruptcy. For the grounds of liability, see liability of directors, shareholders and controlling persons. This case supplements those general guides with a specific decision from my practice.
Frequently asked questions
Can subsidiary liability be discharged in personal bankruptcy?
There is no automatic discharge. The court expressly granted it in this case. A different situation requires examination of the grounds of liability, culpability, conduct during the procedure and current judicial decisions.
Does a failure to hand over documents always lead to discharge now?
The order does not support that conclusion. It rests on the specific facts and does not establish a general permission to withhold documentation.
Was the original subsidiary liability reversed?
No. The court addressed discharge from further performance when completing personal bankruptcy.
Can I read the full judicial act?
Yes. The original Russian PDF is linked near the top. The important findings appear in the reasoning and operative sections, especially pages 3–4.
Assess the risk in a specific subsidiary liability case
An assessment requires the judicial acts and documents in your case. I will examine the grounds of liability and a potential discharge position without promising a guaranteed outcome.
Discuss the judicial actsPrimary sources
- Commercial Court of Moscow Region order dated 12 August 2026, case A41-105253/2024 — supplied by the author.
- Official Supreme Court Review dated 18 June 2025, paragraph 58 — published version amended on 29 April 2026.
- Article 213.28 of Law No. 127-FZ.