The devastating motive of the Timi court to exclude Cosmin Șorban from the company that runs Smartfit gyms

The Timich court gave the reasons The decision to remove Cosmin Șorban as a partner in the company that operates the three gyms under the Smarfit brand Smart Fitness Studio SRL. Major shareholder Kuzmin Urbán is in open conflict with minority shareholder Silvia Iremecu (wife of Rozvan Iremecu, Urban’s business partner). In fact, Urban has admitted that he wants to get rid of the minority shareholder with whom he no longer agrees. Anti-fraud check It led to the discovery of a series of problems, in which the company had to pay a lump sum of 2,001,584 lei, which was added to fines in the amount of 1,362,566 lei.

The court concluded that Arban acted in bad faith, causing severe damages to the company and the minority partner. “With regard to the first reason invoked by the plaintiff, respectively, that the defendant refused to make the financial statements of the company available to the plaintiff, the court considers that Article. 199alin. 5 of Law No. Decision No. 31/1990 provides for the right of a partner without management quality to exercise Financial control in the absence of auditors or auditors. The statement of the reasons stated that the plaintiff’s allegations, meaning preventing her from exercising this right, were proven through the evidence presented in the case.

The Timić court also confirmed the accusations that Zurban had owed the company with money representing, in fact, the company’s revenue, and found that the charges were confirmed by the anti-fraud report. Thus, through the tax inspection report, it was noted that the receipts in the company’s bank accounts during the period from March 2016 to December 2017 as “sales deposits”, with a total value of 1,339,208 were recorded in the accounts as credit by Mr. Urban Kuzmin (B.

115, volume III). In substantiating this factual situation, the tax inspectors took into account the fact that at the reception of each office, customers paid contributions and the company’s employees collected these amounts from reception and deposited them in banking units every day, always at the same time. part of the day. At the same time, it is indicated that these amounts have different values, while the loans given by Mr. Soroban were in a fixed amount (circular) and in the period before March 2016 and after December 2017 the loans were made by him personally. A trip to the banks or by bank transfer from the personal account and not through the company’s employees. Thus, the tax inspection report verified the correctness of the applicant’s assertions in the statement of the reasons for the appeal, stating on the basis of the realistic results of the tax inspection bodies that part of the amounts indicated in the accounts as a credit represent income from company receipts. It has probative value in the present case even if it is challenged by the defendant with Tax decision issued Accordingly, as long as the act 45 file does not. 9287/30/2017 The disputed financial management has not been canceled or suspended by the court, especially those withheld It is confirmed by the conclusions of accounting experience that have been made‘, appears in the motive.

The court concluded that “the established facts, as already described, which impede the applicant in exercising his right to control the company’s activity and to conclude credit agreements for amounts representing not the income of the majority of shareholders, but the company’s revenue. They are limited to the act provided for in Article 222 Paragraph 222 1. lit. d) of Law No. 31/1990 justifying the exclusion of the defendant from the company.
As explained above, the company’s income reduction mechanism and
The increase in the obligations through the above-mentioned loans constitutes a fraud on the account of the company and the presence of the defendant’s guilt, his intention to act at the expense of the company and the collective interest of the partners is unequivocal and the defendant’s behavior in relation to the applicant, from the systematic refusal to ensure his access to the accounting documents of the company in general and credit agreements in particular.

Kuzmin Urban had to pay court costs of 26,110 lei. The judgment is not final and can be appealed to the Court of Appeal in Timisoara.

Leave a Comment