**Case No. 920/1114/24 dated 08/27/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of inflation losses and 3% per annum for delay in payment of dividends.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, emphasizing that the accrual of inflation losses and 3% per annum is a special measure of liability for delay in monetary obligation, and the existence of a court decision on the recovery of debt does not release the debtor from liability for failure to fulfill this obligation. The court noted that the claim for payment of inflation and annual interest is additional to the main claim and depends on its fate. It was also taken into account that the issue of the legality of accrual and recovery of dividends had already been resolved in another case, the decision in which has entered into legal force, therefore, these circumstances are not subject to repeated proof. The court indicated that Article 27 of the Law of Ukraine “On Limited and Additional Liability Companies”, to which the appellant referred, does not regulate the disputed legal relations regarding the accrual of 3% per annum and inflation losses, which are regulated by Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 910/1128/23 dated 08/26/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of Alter Energo Development LLC for the recovery from Ukrainian Railways JSC of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the review of the case in the court of cassation.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the application for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, was guided by the following arguments: expenses for legal assistance must be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and the time spent; the court does not have the right to reduce the amount of expenses for legal assistance on its own initiative if the other party has not filed a corresponding motion; the amount of the fee is determined by agreement between the attorney and the client, and the court has no right to interfere in these legal relations, however, the court may reduce the amount of expenses if they are disproportionate; the party claiming disproportionality of expenses must prove it; in the case of establishing a fixed fee amount, the party may prove the disproportionality of expenses by referring to the complexity of the case, the claim price, the amount of materials in the case, etc.; considering that the legal position of the plaintiff was consistent, the regulatory framework did not change, and the attorney was thoroughly familiar with the case materials, the preparation of the case for cassation review did not require a significant amount of time spent.
3. The court partially granted the application of Alter Energo Development LLC and ordered the recovery of UAH 20,000 from Ukrainian Railways JSC for professional legal assistance.
in aid, refusing to satisfy the remaining claims.
Case No. 910/14817/22 dated 08/26/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the unilateral termination of the financial leasing agreement as invalid and the amendment of this agreement.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the unilateral termination of the agreement was lawful, since the right to such termination was stipulated by the terms of the agreement in the event of overdue lease payments. The court noted that the parties are free to determine the terms of the agreement, including the grounds for unilateral termination. Also, the court emphasized that the Complainant did not provide proper evidence of force majeure circumstances that would make it impossible to fulfill obligations under the agreement, and also did not notify the Defendant in a timely manner about such circumstances, as stipulated by the terms of the agreement. The court also took into account that the Complainant continued to conduct economic activity during the period of martial law, which indicates the absence of insurmountable obstacles to fulfilling contractual obligations. In addition, the court emphasized that the certificate of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry regarding force majeure circumstances is not irrefutable proof of their existence and must be assessed in conjunction with other evidence. The court also pointed out that the Complainant, in a letter to the Defendant, referred to a significant change in circumstances, and not to force majeure, which are different legal institutions.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 904/1256/24 dated 08/28/2025
The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of damages from PJSC “Bank Vostok” in favor of the corporate non-state pension fund of the National Bank of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court considered the cassation appeal of PJSC “Bank Vostok” against the additional ruling of the appellate court, which concerned the bank’s application for the adoption of an additional court decision. The court of cassation established certain violations or inaccuracies in the additional ruling of the appellate court, which became the basis for its cancellation. At the same time, for a comprehensive and objective resolution of the issue that arose in connection with the application of PJSC “Bank Vostok”, the Supreme Court decided to transfer the case in this part for a new consideration to the court of appeal. This means that the appellate court must re-examine the bank’s application and make a new decision taking into account the instructions set out in the постанові (ruling) of the Supreme Court. The cassation appeal probably contained arguments regarding the unfoundedness or illegality of the additional ruling of the appellate court, which the Supreme Court recognized as partially justified.
The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal of PJSC “Bank Vostok”, canceling
amended the additional ruling of the Central Commercial Court of Appeal and remanded the case regarding PJSC “Bank Vostok’s” application for an additional court decision to the Central Commercial Court of Appeal for a new hearing.
Case No. 911/1974/24 dated 08/28/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 10,426,594.74 from LLC “Avtospezprom” in favor of the state represented by the Ministry of Health of Ukraine.
The court of cassation instance closed the cassation proceedings regarding the ground provided for in paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and refused to satisfy the cassation appeal regarding the ground provided for in paragraph 2 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal were not confirmed during the cassation review, and the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, and correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. The court also rejected the cassation appeal against the additional ruling of the appellate court, finding no violations of procedural law in its adoption. The absence of reasonable grounds for canceling the decisions of the courts of previous instances led to leaving them unchanged.
The court upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of Kyiv Oblast, the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal, and the additional ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 908/2710/24 dated 08/28/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 1,926,696.42.
The decision does not provide any arguments of the court, only stating that the cassation appeal of LLC “RDD” was dismissed, and the decisions of previous instances were upheld. The absence of a reasoning part makes it impossible to understand what arguments the court used in making the decision.
The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of LLC “RDD” and to uphold the decision of the Commercial Court of Zaporizhzhia Oblast and the ruling of the Central Commercial Court of Appeal in the case on satisfying the claim.
Case No. 908/72/24 dated 08/28/2025
The subject of the dispute is the claim of an individual entrepreneur to stop the violation of intellectual property rights by a Limited Liability Company.
The Supreme Court, leaving the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged, likely agreed with their conclusions regarding the absence of a violation of intellectual property rights. It is possible that the courts of previous instances found that the defendant’s actions did not violate the plaintiff’s rights to the intellectual property object, or that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the fact of the violation.
h, the courts may have investigated the issue of the legitimacy of the use of the intellectual property object by the defendant on the basis of a license or other legal basis. The cassation court, having verified the legality and validity of the court decisions, found no grounds for their cancellation. The absence of the defendant’s representative in the court session may indicate his agreement with the decisions of the previous instances or the lack of desire to appeal them.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 910/16800/23 dated 08/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by “Rio Fin” LLC in connection with the consideration of the cassation appeal of PERSON_1.
2. The cassation court, when considering the application of “Rio Fin” LLC for the recovery of legal costs, was guided by the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On Advocacy and Advocacy Activities,” taking into account the criteria of validity, proportionality, commensurability, and reasonableness of the amount of such costs. The court took into account the agreement on the provision of legal assistance, the act of rendered services, and other evidence submitted by “Rio Fin” LLC. At the same time, the court rejected the claim for reimbursement of expenses for the preparation of the application for an additional decision, referring to the legal position of the joint chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court. Also, the court did not recognize the expenses for consultation on the prospects of protection after the adoption of the court decision as justified, as they were not directly related to the consideration of the case in the cassation instance. The court emphasized that only those expenses that were actually incurred and are necessary for the consideration of the case are subject to reimbursement.
3. The court partially granted the application of “Rio Fin” LLC and ordered to recover from PERSON_1 in favor of “Rio Fin” LLC UAH 28,500.00 as reimbursement of legal costs for professional legal assistance in the cassation court.
Case No. 922/885/24 dated 08/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the state in the use and disposal of defense lands by recognizing the lease agreement as invalid, canceling the state registration of land plots, and obliging the return of land plots.
2. The cassation court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, supporting the position of the prosecutor, who acted in the interests of the state, since the disputed land plots are located within the border strip and belong to the defense lands, which, according to the legislation of Ukraine, excludes the possibility of their transfer to communal or private ownership. The court noted that the prosecutor properly substantiated the grounds for representing the interests of the state, since Kharkivska
The Regional State Administration, authorized to manage defense lands, demonstrated inaction in protecting these interests. Additionally, the court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of the evidence presented by the prosecutor, emphasizing that the appellant did not provide specific legal grounds for deeming this evidence inadmissible. The court of cassation emphasized that establishing the facts of the case and evaluating evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and it does not have the authority to interfere in this evaluation unless violations of the procedure for providing and obtaining evidence have been detected.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
**Case No. 910/14479/23 (910/5873/24) dated 20/08/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the company “Onur Taahhut Tasimacilik Insaat Ticaret ve Sanayi A.S.” of penalties, inflation losses, and three percent per annum, accrued due to overdue payment for goods delivered under the supply contract.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court, in reducing the penalty amount by 50%, did not provide adequate justification for the conclusion about the excessive amount of the penalty and did not analyze the actual circumstances and evidence that would confirm the need for the court to exercise discretionary powers to reduce the penalty amount. In addition, the appellate court did not take into account that the dispute is being considered within the framework of the bankruptcy case, where it is important to protect the interests of all creditors, not just the defendant. The Supreme Court emphasized that the bankruptcy procedure aims to maximize the satisfaction of creditors’ claims, and reducing the penalty amount may negatively affect the debtor’s financial situation and its ability to pay off creditors. The court of cassation also noted that the appellate court did not provide a legal assessment of the plaintiff’s arguments that the defendant’s actions, in particular late payment, became one of the reasons for the plaintiff’s insolvency. Considering this, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case and violated the norms of procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision in the part concerning the reduction of the penalty amount and sent the case for a new consideration to the court of appellate instance.
**Case No. 927/903/21 dated 28/08/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 289,265,390.83 under the claim of the Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine against the Gas Distribution System Operator “Chernihivgaz” and a counterclaim for recognition of actions as unlawful.
In the decision, the courts of previous instances refused to satisfy the claim of the Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine, as well as refused to satisfy the counterclaim of the Gas Distribution System Operator “Chernihivgaz”.
The court of cassation instance agreed with such conclusions. The court of cassation instance noted that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, and correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. In particular, the courts took into account the provisions of legislation in the field of energy and the peculiarities of the relationship between the operators of gas transmission and gas distribution systems. The court of cassation instance also took into account the circumstances established by the courts of previous instances regarding the volumes of actually transported gas and settlements between the parties.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine, and the decision of the Commercial Court of Chernihiv Oblast and the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 916/3116/24 dated August 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the motion of “Basko” LLC to recover from the Department of Communal Property of the Odesa City Council the costs of professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the consideration of the cassation appeal.
2. The Supreme Court, when considering the motion of “Basko” LLC for the recovery of legal assistance costs, was guided by the principle of reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor the decision was made, as well as the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the distribution of such costs. The court took into account the criteria of justification and proportionality of the amount of costs to the subject of the dispute, as well as the behavior of the parties during the consideration of the case. The court noted that the amount of expenses for legal assistance should be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the time spent by the lawyer, the amount of services provided, and the price of the claim. The court also took into account the Department’s objections regarding the inflated amount of expenses, but noted the absence of a specific amount that the Department considers reasonable. As a result, the court partially granted the motion of “Basko” LLC, reducing the amount of compensation, taking into account the groundlessness of the motion to close the proceedings and the established position of the parties in the case.
3. The court ruled to partially grant the motion of “Basko” LLC and recover from the Department of Communal Property of the Odesa City Council UAH 21,000 for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 910/5715/24 dated August 20, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision of the state registrar on state registration of ownership of the apartment for the bank.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous courts, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff (PERSON_1), who applied to the court, was no longer the owner of the disputed apartment at the time of filing the claim, since he sold it to a third party, and therefore,
has no violated right that needs protection. The court noted that the appeal to the court was actually aimed at eliminating legal uncertainty and formally confirming the illegality of the registrar’s decision for use in other court proceedings, rather than at actually restoring the plaintiff’s violated right. The court also took into account that in another case, where PJSC “MTB Bank” tried to recover the apartment from the new owner, the Supreme Court had already assessed the legality of the registrar’s decision and rejected the bank’s claim. The court of cassation instance indicated that although the courts of previous instances made a mistake by prematurely proceeding to the consideration of the dispute on the merits, this did not affect the correctness of the conclusion that there were no grounds for satisfying the claim.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 904/9587/21 dated 08/27/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession, the cancellation of the state registration of ownership, and the cancellation of the arrest imposed on this property.
The court refused to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff did not prove the legality of acquiring ownership of the disputed property, which was recognized as an unauthorized construction in a previous court decision that has preclusive effect for this case; in addition, the court of cassation instance did not establish violations of the norms of procedural law by the court of appeal instance, in particular, it did not find confirmation of the fact that a decision was made regarding the rights and obligations of a person who was not involved in the case. The Supreme Court also noted that the circumstances of this case differ significantly from the circumstances in the cases referred to by the appellant, therefore the conclusions of the Supreme Court in those cases cannot be applied to this case. The court of cassation instance closed the cassation proceedings in the part of the ground for cassation appeal provided for in paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and left the decision of the court of appeal instance unchanged.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 303/55/23 dated 08/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling, which upheld the acquittal of a person accused of illegal handling of weapons (Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceling the appellate court’s ruling and ordering a new trial in the appellate instance. At the same time, the operative part of the ruling does not provide specific arguments that the court of cassation instance was guided by, but it mentions about
necessity of a new appellate review. It can be assumed that the court found certain violations of the criminal procedure law committed by the appellate court in verifying the legality and validity of the acquittal verdict, or disagreed with the assessment of the evidence provided by the court of appellate instance. Since the full text of the ruling will be announced later, final conclusions about the motives of the decision can be made after its analysis. It is important that the court of cassation did not indicate the need to change the qualification of the defendant’s actions or the existence of grounds for conviction, but only emphasized the need for a retrial by the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 303/55/23 dated August 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the acquittal verdict of PERSON_7 on charges of illegal acquisition and possession of ammunition and explosives (Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court took a formal approach to reviewing the verdict, failing to ensure a full investigation of the evidence and failing to consider the prosecutor’s motion for a re-examination of the evidence, which is a violation of Articles 2, 22, 404 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The appellate court is obliged to carefully verify the arguments of the appeal, using all procedural possibilities, including conducting a judicial investigation to the extent necessary. Failure to fulfill this obligation resulted in the appellate court’s ruling not meeting the requirements of Articles 370, 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which define the requirements for the legality and validity of a court decision. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court is, in fact, the last instance for verifying the correctness of the established factual circumstances of the case, and this places an obligation on it to carefully assess the evidence, especially when it comes to overturning an acquittal verdict.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 215/3325/17 dated August 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the convicted person against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding his conviction under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional infliction of minor bodily injury).
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgments, as the appellate court duly verified the convicted person’s arguments regarding possible violations during the pre-trial investigation, in particular, regarding the authenticity of the prosecutor’s signature on procedural documents, and found that these arguments were not confirmed. The appellate court took into account the results
investigation by the State Bureau of Investigations, which did not reveal any facts of forgery of the prosecutor’s signature. The court of cassation also noted that the appellate court reasonably rejected the defense’s request for the requisition of additional documents and the appointment of an expert examination, as these requests were not properly substantiated. In addition, the court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court properly assessed the convict’s arguments regarding the refusal of the court of first instance to interrogate the witnesses who were present during the investigative experiments, and concluded that there were no grounds to doubt the reliability of the information recorded in the protocols of these investigative actions.
3. The Supreme Court decided to leave the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the convict – without satisfaction.
Case No. 953/6587/22 dated 08/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the correctness of the reclassification of the accused’s actions from Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (robbery committed on a large scale) to Part 1 of Article 355 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (coercion to fulfill civil law obligations).
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court took a formal approach to the consideration of the prosecutor’s appeal, did not properly verify the arguments of the prosecution, and did not give them due consideration. In particular, the appellate court did not take into account that for the qualification of actions under Article 355 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the presence of interrelated actions is necessary: the requirement to fulfill a civil law obligation and the threat to damage or destroy property. The court also did not take into account that Article 355 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine does not provide for such a method of committing a crime as the seizure of someone else’s property to induce the victim to fulfill a civil law obligation. Instead, the courts established that the accused seized a mobile phone from the victim, the value of which significantly exceeded the amount of the debt, which may indicate a crime other than coercion to fulfill civil law obligations. The appellate court did not analyze whether the accused’s actions were aimed specifically at coercing the fulfillment of an obligation or at taking possession of property.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 953/5468/23 dated 08/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of justifying, recognizing as legitimate, denying the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s verdict, dismissing the defense counsel’s cassation appeal. The decision does not contain detailed arguments that the court of cassation was guided by, since ogOnly the operative part has been announced. The full text of the ruling with the justification of the court’s position will be announced later. However, it can be assumed that the court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the proof of the person’s guilt in committing actions aimed at justifying or denying the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, taking into account the public danger of such actions and their impact on national security. The court could also take into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the limits of freedom of expression in the context of protecting a democratic society and the territorial integrity of the state.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to uphold the judgment of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal and dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 686/8195/23 dated 08/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for committing a number of criminal offenses, including theft, abduction of documents, robbery, intentional homicide, and intentional damage to property.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, partially granted it, motivating this by the fact that the court of first instance and the appellate court made a mistake by considering the conclusion of a forensic biological examination as evidence of the person’s guilt, which, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, did not meet the requirements of relevance and admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. The court of cassation emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the evidence and its evaluation from the point of view of relevance, admissibility, reliability, and the totality of the collected evidence – from the point of view of sufficiency and interconnection for making a legal and justified decision. According to the court, taking into account inappropriate evidence could affect the objectivity of the trial. However, other evidence was found sufficient to confirm the person’s guilt, therefore, the judgment and ruling were otherwise left unchanged.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, excluding from the reasoning part of the court decisions the reference to the conclusion of the forensic biological examination as evidence of guilt, but otherwise left the judgment of the local court and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 183/3464/24 dated 08/27/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules that resulted in the death of the victim).
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the judgment of the appellate court, thus supporting the decision of the court of appeal. The operative part of the ruling does not contain specific arguments that the court was guided by, however, leaving the judgment b
The fact that it remains unchanged indicates that the court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the proof of guilt of PERSON_7 in committing a criminal offense, the correctness of the qualification of his actions, and the justification of the imposed punishment. Also, the court probably did not find significant violations of the criminal procedure law that could lead to the cancellation or modification of the appealed court decision. Since the full text of the ruling will be drawn up later, a more detailed analysis of the court’s motives is currently impossible.
The court ruled: The verdict of the Dnipro Court of Appeal of February 20, 2025, regarding PERSON_7, shall remain unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defender PERSON_6 shall be dismissed.
Case No. 922/2728/21 dated 08/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation.
2. The court granted the application for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, as the applicant provided proper evidence of incurring such expenses, namely, a contract for the provision of legal assistance, an annex to the contract with a fixed amount of the fee, and an act of completed works. The court took into account the scope of services provided, namely, the drafting of a response to the cassation appeal, and also rejected the defendant’s motion to reduce expenses, since the defendant did not prove the disproportionality of expenses with the complexity of the case and the amount of materials. The court also noted that the fee is not obviously inflated and does not raise reasonable doubts about its reality. The court emphasized that expenses for professional legal assistance are subject to distribution regardless of whether their cost has already been actually paid or is only to be paid. Also, the court took into account that the cassation appeal was partially satisfied, but not on the grounds stated in it.
3. The court decided to recover from Private Enterprise “Zolota Nyva 1” in favor of PERSON_1 UAH 5,000.00 for expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation.
Case No. 921/372/22 dated 08/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the liquidator’s motion to impose joint liability on the former head of the bankrupt company for the company’s obligations on the basis of his violation of the obligation to apply to the court with a bankruptcy petition.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the liquidator’s motion, since the threat of the company’s insolvency arose even before the appointment of the former head to the position, and the Law of Ukraine “On Restoration of Debtor’s Solvency or Declaration of Bankruptcy” in force at that time did not provide for the obligation of the head to apply to the court with a bankruptcy petition in the event of a threat of insolvency.
