Abstract
<jats:p>This article examines the problematic aspects of concluding a settlement agreement in separate disputes over subsidiary liability of persons controlling a debtor in bankruptcy cases. The features of the procedural proce-dure for concluding a multilateral settlement agreement between creditors and persons subject to subsidiary liability are analyzed. The comparison of the substantive and legal aspects of the settlement agreement as a transaction concluded in the framework of ordinary arbitration proceedings, bankruptcy proceedings and a separate dispute on bringing to subsidiary liability is carried out. It is noted that insufficient doctrinal understand-ing of the legal model of the settlement agreement under study, high conflict between both the persons being held accountable and creditors, as well as between creditors themselves in the bankruptcy process, as well as the inability to overcome the right of “veto” of any of the creditors lead to the practical impossibility of conclud-ing a deal. The conclusion is made about the special role of the settlement agreement as a tool to protect the persons controlling the debtor from the reputational costs of resolving a dispute over their subsidiary liability, as well as a tool to ensure the satisfaction of all creditors’ claims. It is proposed to introduce into the current legisla-tion provisions obliging the arbitration court to introduce interim measures in respect of property disclosed by the person controlling the debtor in preparation for the conclusion of a settlement agreement.</jats:p>