Brothers Magomedov draw responsibility for 17 billion rubles

A duet of status businessmen will drown in the claims of the temporary managers of their former companies.
Summa Group, its co-owners Ziyavudin and Magomed Magomedov, as well as a number of managers are demanding that they bring subsidiary liability in excess of 17 billion rubles. Such a lawsuit in the framework of the bankruptcy of Globelelektroservis OJSC (HPP), a member of the group, was declared by its interim manager. He accuses the defendants that they did not file for bankruptcy in case of signs of insolvency of the company. Lawyers say that it is not easy, but theoretically possible, to recognize the Magomedov brothers as responsible.

As follows from the filing of arbitration cases, the court accepted the claim of Mikhail Andreev, interim manager of Globalelektroservis, a member of the Summa group, in the proceedings (in August, the company introduced a monitoring procedure at the request of its creditor NT-Com Engineering LLC). Mr. Andreev demands to attract a number of persons to subsidiary liability in the amount of 16.1 billion to 17.1 billion rubles. He demands a large sum from a number of individuals and legal entities, including Sumy’s co-owners Ziyavudin and Magomed Magomedov’s brothers, ex-CEO of Summa Group Leila Mammedzade (resigned in August), Vyacheslav Kochetov (general director of HES from June 2015 until March 2016), Cyprus E-Seven Limited (owns 99% of hydroelectric power plants), Summa Group LLC itself and its Stroynovatsiya LLC, as well as Baker Tilly Rusaudit LLC (since 2017, Crowe Rusaudit "). In the group "Summa" declined to comment.

The claimant refers to article 61.12 of the bankruptcy law, according to which managers and debtor’s controlling persons (CFL) can be held subject to subsidiary liability for breach of the duty to initiate bankruptcy of a debtor within a specified time frame. For the CEO, this is a month from the moment the company showed signs of insolvency, for other KDLs - ten days after this deadline. For the time being, the lawsuit has been left without movement: the manager has until December 17 to confirm that the defendants are CFLs, and also to provide evidence of their notification.

Lawyers state that lately the number of claims for accountability for subsidiary liability has greatly increased, as has the number of cases of their satisfaction. Partner of Pepeliaev Group, Yulia Litovtseva, believes that a wide range of respondents “may be due to the manager’s desire to obtain as much information as possible about the debtor, his financial position and the circle of people who really determine his activity.” Perhaps the manager intends to ask the court for interim measures and block the assets of the defendants, believing that they can be withdrawn, adds Maxana Platonov, partner of the Muranov, Chernyakov and Partners attorneys' board. He is surprised by the filing of a lawsuit at the observation stage: “The law allows it, but the purpose of the observation is to determine the fate of the debtor, who can still be saved. The search for perpetrators of bankruptcy usually occurs later, at the stage of bankruptcy proceedings.

A number of assets of the Magomedov brothers, including bank accounts of more than 30 legal entities, as well as their personal accounts and property, have already been arrested in a criminal case. The Magomedov Brothers are accused of organizing a criminal community, the damage from which, according to the calculations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, is 2.8 billion rubles. In one of the episodes of the case, there is also a JSC Hydroelectric Power Plant - according to the version of the investigation, budget funds allocated under the state contract for the construction of a football stadium in Kaliningrad were stolen through this engineering company. HPP was also a contractor for the construction of a thermal power plant in Sovetskaya Gavan for RusHydro (part of a project of four stations for which the budget gave 50 billion rubles), but did not cope with the project.

Lawyers emphasize that under article 61.12 responsibility is borne by persons who could decide on the company's appeal with a bankruptcy statement or affect it. They consider the prospects of meeting the requirements for an auditor or Stroynovations to be dubious. “The presentation of requirements for the de facto parent company of the group to which the debtor belongs, to its managers and owners, in my opinion, may occur under certain circumstances,” believes Yulia Litovtseva, adding that she has not met such an approach in practice. “But if it is proved that the founder was only a“ liner ”, and all decisions were made by the people behind the group, the court can proceed from de facto, not legal control,” the lawyer says.