A minority shareholder of PJSC “coke” Victoria Cossack got a new chance to recover 1.98 billion RUB from Eugene with Zubitsky (controls 53.6% of “Coke”) listed him as a salary on a post of the head of the management company. Dispute, the original Ms. is lost Cossack, directed in the first instance. According to the appeal, the lower courts did not appreciate the arguments about the existence of a conflict of interest between the company and the Respondent. The court also questioned the good faith of the Lord with Zubitsky who approved himself the payment of high fees. According to lawyers, the minority shareholders have a chance of success.Lasted several years, the corporate conflict in “Coke” has got a new twist: the appeal was sent for new consideration the claim of the daughter-in-law of the main shareholder of the company with Zubitsky Eugenia Victoria Kazak (owns 16% of shares of “Coke”) requiring him to reimburse the company for damages in the amount of 1.98 billion RUB Lady Cossack insists that mister Zubitsky brought the money in 2016-2018 under the pay via LTD. UK PMH (a subsidiary of “Coke”, is its sole Executive body), where he held the position of President. In the lawsuit, Victoria Cossack calls the payments “a personal quasiguided” (officially “coke” no dividends were paid). According to plaintiff, PMH received monthly from the “Coke” rewards up to 1.5% of revenue (no more than 90 million rubles per month).The arbitration court of the Kemerovo region in June 2019 dismissed the claims, arguing that since Mrs. Cossack is not involved in IMH, and has no right to recover damages. The fact of causing them by the defendant, the court found unproven. The appeal decision upheld, but the court of cassation arguments of the plaintiff were taken into account. Lower courts, said the appeal not assessed the arguments that the conduct of Mr. with Zubitsky “did not meet the standards of reasonableness and good faith” and that he, having “the actual opportunity to determine the validity of a “Coke” and IMH”, decided to approve the internal documents on payment of remuneration to himself, depriving the “coke” and its shareholders “control over the assets in their favor.” According to cassation, the courts should also evaluate the argument that Yevgeny Zubitsky acted in conflict of his personal interests and the interests of the company and had to prove a benefit to “Coke” committed in their favor deals.In the end, the cassation quashed the lower courts ‘ decisions and sent the case for retrial to the first instance with the order to explore these questions.In a press-service of IMH refused to comment on the dispute. “The court of appeal acknowledged that I have the right to sue and that a multi-million dollar salary, the amount of which Evgeny Zubitsky has established itself at its own discretion, might have a wrongful purpose in the form of a withdrawal of profit of PJSC “coke” that violates my rights toAK minority shareholder to receive dividends, the actual performance of the companies”,— explained “Kommersant” Victoria Cossack.Lawyers believe that the Complainant has a prospect of success of new trial. Partner of the law firm YUST Alexander bolomatov says that lower courts have expressed reluctance to examine the arguments, but even formally lawful transactions may have a wrongful purpose of reducing the profits of the principal company. “Obviously, the remuneration of Directors of UK for the three years amounting to almost 2 billion RUB self-explanatory, taking into account that no dividends were paid,”— said the lawyer.Partner of law firm “paper bags, Kolotilov and partners” Oleg Kolotilov adds that the decision of the cassation court practice develops in relation to the “strengthening of the control over payments to top managers in case if it violates the interests of the shareholders or creditors of the society”. “The fact that the Respondent was not included in the composition of the bodies “Coke”, but was only a controlling person, cannot free him from responsibility,”— says the lawyer.At the same time, said managing partner AB “the Bartolius” Julius tai, “all payments are to challenge unfair, especially because management contracts are concluded not only with “Coke”, but with several subsidiary companies.” Agree Kolotilov Oleg: “it is Important to assess the fairness of remuneration, based on the fact that it can indeed be a high top managers”. However, says Mr. bolomatov, “it will be extremely difficult to justify the 2 billion rubles of wages.”The arbitral panel