The family did not take responsibility – Kommersant Yekaterinburg

The Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region, in the framework of the bankruptcy case of the Food Company, refused to bring the owner of the Kirovsky supermarket chain Igor Kovpak and his son, State Duma deputy Lev Kovpak, to subsidiary liability. They wanted to recover about 1 billion rubles from them and several other companies. According to lawyers, the bankruptcy trustee will try to challenge the decision on subsidiary liability, but the chances of this are slim.

The Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region did not bring to subsidiary liability Ural businessman and owner of the Kirovsky supermarket chain Igor Kovpak, his son, State Duma deputy from the United Russia party Lev Kovpak, Lev’s wife Veronika Kovpak and the Lev company for the obligations of Foodstuff LLC company (is in bankruptcy). Recall that in 2021 the court imposed arrests on the accounts and property of Lev Kovpak, his wife and father in the bankruptcy case of Food Company LLC. The bankruptcy trustee of the LLC then believed that the deputy was engaged in the withdrawal of funds in favor of companies controlled by him. It was stated that Lev Kovpak withdrew funds from Prodovolstvennaya Kompaniya LLC in favor of the companies controlled by him – Product Land, OZHK, Lev, Prometheus and others included in the Best Group of Companies under his control. And also withdrew money in favor of companies controlled by his wife and father. It was about the amount of more than 650 million rubles. Later arrests of accounts and property successfully disputed.

According to materials court, back in June 2021, the bankruptcy trustee asked to bring the Kovpakov family to subsidiary liability.

In addition to them, the manager also asked to attract the companies “Product-Land”, “Prometheus”, “OJK” and collect more than 1 billion rubles. In March 2023, the claim for subsidiary liability against Kovpakov and the Lev company was submitted to a separate proceeding.

Trying to bring to subsidiary liability Igor Kovpak and Lev LLC (belongs Kovpakam), the manager, in support of his claim, referred to the fact that the businessman and Lev were deriving unreasonable benefits from the illegal and dishonest behavior of the leaders of the debtor Food Company. At the same time, the unjustified benefit, in his opinion, was expressed in the fact that from March 2017 to December 2018, the debtor transferred 2.1 million rubles to Lev LLC. without a counter provision, in the absence of primary documents, and also that Igor Kovpak “together with his son, carried out the withdrawal of other assets of the debtor in the amount of more than 630 million rubles.” At the same time, the court refused to satisfy the application of the bankruptcy trustee to invalidate the transaction for 2.1 million rubles. to OOO “Lev”. The courts recognized these transfers as corresponding to the current legislation and the terms of the contractual relations of the parties.

«Approval of the bankruptcy trustee that Kovpak AND.AND. jointly Kovpak L.I. carried out the withdrawal of the debtor’s assets in the amount of more than 630 million rubles. is not confirmed by the materials of the case,” the court materials say.

The bankruptcy trustee also cited the following grounds on which Igor Kovpak and Lev LLC should be held subsidiary liable. First, transactions that caused significant harm to the debtor and his creditors for a total of 658.1 million rubles. Secondly, participation in the “business model” with “unprofitable” and “profitable” centers. Meanwhile, as noted in the materials, the transaction for the transfer of funds by the debtor in favor of Lev LLC was recognized by the court as legal.

The bankruptcy trustee pointed out that within the framework of the Best Group of Companies, a business model was created with unprofitable and profitable centers, the main purpose of which was to preserve the assets of the Group of Companies and a risk-free, financially stable center, in particular OOO Lev, by liquidating the unprofitable companies of the group, including the Food Company. At the same time, the bankruptcy trustees did not provide evidence of how the assets of Igor Kovpak or the Lev company were increased or preserved due to the liquidation of the debtor or other “unprofitable” centers.

The court also found that Igor Kovpak did not hold positions in the Food Company and did not have the authority to make any transactions on behalf of the LLC.

As for the deputy Lev Kovpak, the court was also not presented with evidence that he approved, carried out, initiated transactions related to the case. “The circumstances of the bankruptcy case, including the materials of each of the considered separate disputes, confirm that none of the transactions or actions of the Food Company was approved by Lev Kovpak, agreed upon or initiated by him,” the materials state. The court ruling also notes that since 2013, all shares in companies formally owned by Lev Kovpak have been transferred to trust management. This is due to the fact that since 2010, Mr. Kovpak has been a State Duma deputy.

The court concluded that the transactions referred to in the court, as a result, “did not and could not change the structure of the property” of the debtor company and could not lead it to bankruptcy.

As a result, the court refused to satisfy the claims of the bankruptcy trustee, RNGO LLC to bring to subsidiary liability Igor and Lev Kovpakov, Veronika Kovpak, as well as Lev LLC for the obligations of the Food Company.

According to the head of the Yekaterinburg office of Arbitrazh.ru law firm Artem Komsyukov, neither the bankruptcy trustee nor the main creditor of RNGO presented in the dispute materials both the rationale for Kovpakov and the Lev company to have the status of controlling debtor, and the grounds for bringing to subsidiary responsibility. “In my opinion, such a significant period of consideration is due not to the complexity of the case, but to the passive procedural behavior of the manager and creditors. When submitting an application for bringing to subsidiary liability in the amount of more than 1 billion rubles, evidence for this amount was not attached to the application. The court also established the commission of malicious transactions in the amount of just over 30 million rubles,” Mr. Komsyukov commented to Kommersant-Ural.

“The decision to refuse to bring to subsidiary liability will probably be appealed on appeal, but the prospect of changing it by higher courts seems unlikely,” summarized Roman Rechkin, senior partner at Intellect law firm.

Lawyer Andrey Vinnitsky, representing the interests of Lev Kovpak in court, promised to provide a comment later.

Maria Ignatova

Read us at Telegram , In contact with