"Termination of the bankruptcy procedure is not the basis for termination of proceedings on the application for bringing to subsidiary liability of controlling persons of the debtor" - this is the conclusion reached by the Supreme court of the Russian Federation considering the complaint of the creditor-applicant in the bankruptcy case.
"17" November 2017 completed the procedure of bankruptcy proceedings of the debtor LLC "Novaport", case A40-70634/2016.
A brief presentation of the essay on the subsidiary liability of shareholders and directors by comparing the approach adopted by the Russian Courts – as recently confirmed by the Supreme Courts – with those of other legal systems, the Italian one in particular, to the debated topic of the identification of the circumstances the occurrence of which make it possible to pierce the corporate veil, a topic that would deserve further attention by the Italian legislators, too.
The existence of a legal entity can be compared with human life, i.e. establishment (birth), activities (human life) and liquidation (death). However, in each of the comparable phenomena above, from the point of view of law, there are significant differences. In the framework of this article, we focus on the consideration of the legal ‘death’ (liquidation) of legal entities, and study this issue in relation to certain types of corporations (business entities).
Президиум Верховного Суда РФ утвердил Обзор судебной практики разрешения споров, связанных с установлением в процедурах банкротства требований лиц, контролирующих должника и аффилированных с ним лиц.
В Обзоре даны важные разъяснения относительно специфики участия в делах о банкротстве лиц, аффилированных с должником и (или) контролирующих его деятельность.
A non-use court action is routine for the IP court. Every year several hundred cases are considered and granted. Sometimes, however, a cancellation action stumbles at unexpected obstacles.
On March 23 2017 the Federal Tax Service issued a notification entitled On Identifying the Circumstances of an Unjustified Tax Benefit (ED-5-9/547@), which summarises the law enforcement practice associated with assessing the validity of a tax benefit in disputes relating to bad-faith contracting parties.
This review concerns a number of amendments to Federal Law "On insolvency"1 (the "Law") introduced by federal laws No. 222-FZ2 and No. 488-FZ3, and the interpretation of the amendments in the Review of Court Practice on Matters Related to Participation of State Authorities in Insolvency Proceedings and Procedures Applicable in these Proceedings, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 20 December 2016 (the "Review").
This review covers the following most important amendments:
On July 31, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recognized a Russian insolvency proceeding as a foreign main proceeding under chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (“Code”), concluding that (i) a retainer deposited with the debtor’s attorneys in the U.S. was sufficient property within the United States to establish jurisdiction over a debtor under section 109(a) of the Code and (ii) the Russian insolvency proceeding was not “manifestly contrary to public policy of the United States.”
Russia's bankruptcy law (the Law) has been amended to expand the list of persons who may be held vicariously liable for a bankrupt's debts and clarify the grounds for such liability.1
Definition of controlling person clarified
New Federal Law No. 266-FZ dated 29 July 2017 (the Amendment Law) introduces notable changes to Russia’s insolvency rules. Importantly, the law does away with the original provisions on vicarious liability of controlling persons in RF Law No. 127-FZ on Insolvency of 26 October 2002 (the Insolvency Law). The Amendment Law expands this concept in a series of new clauses. The rules came into force 30 July 2017.