Annotation

The article examines the limits of statutory presumptions in proceedings concerning the subsidiary liability of persons controlling a debtor. It focuses on cases where control has been established, but the inability to satisfy creditors’ claims results not only from the defendant’s conduct but also from other circumstances. The article argues that a presumption may shift the burden of proof, yet it does not relieve the court of the need to identify the controlling person’s act or omission, its effect on the debtor’s assets, and the connection between that effect and the unsatisfied claims. At the same time, the claimant should not be required to calculate precisely what the debtor’s financial position would have been in the absence of the violation. This approach accounts for the parties’ unequal access to evidence while preventing liability based solely on formal status or an unsuccessful business decision.