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.

Bankruptcy cases can involve not only the debtor’s pledge creditors (creditors whose claims are secured by means of a pledge), but also creditors whose claims are secured by other means of securing the performance of obligations. Said means may include both those means that are explicitly defined in the Russian Civil Code and those that are not. Among the means of proprietary nature (as opposed to means of personal nature, such as suretyship), special mention goes to security deposit, retention money, security transfer of title and finance lease.

Among other things, new Federal Law No. 266-FZ (July 29, 2017) (the "Amendment") supersedes provisions concerning the vicarious liability of "controlling persons" for a bankrupt corporate debtor’s obligations set forth in RF Law No. 127-FZ on Insolvency (October 26, 2002) (the "Insolvency Law").

The Amendment defines a "controlling person" as any individual or entity who, during the three-year period preceding the existence of "signs of insolvency" or court approval of a bankruptcy petition, had the power to direct the debtor’s affairs, including the execution of contracts.

The key to understanding how the transfer of immovable property and service provision works for specialised companies in Russia.

The maintenance activities of Russian specialised companies (SPVs) are not only limited to charter activities. This article looks at the transfer of immovable property to a SPV balance and the transfer of service provision to standby service agents in Russia.

Третейские решения нередко используются для получения неправомерного контроля в делах о банкротстве. Схема установления контроля между аффилированными компаниями, позволяющая неправомерно получить статус первого заявителя в будущем деле о банкротстве и контролировать данный процесс, в общих чертах выглядит следующим образом:

– Между готовящейся к банкротству компанией А и ее аффилированной компанией Б создается сомнительное долговое обязательство на крупную сумму (поставка товаров, оказание услуг, заем и т.д.).

Arbitral awards are often used to obtain an undue control in bankruptcy cases. In simple terms, affiliated companies use the mechanism described below to enable a creditor to unlawfully gain the status of a first applicant in subsequent bankruptcy proceedings, and thus, control the proceedings:

– A dubious obligation to pay a large amount (e.g. for delivery of goods, provision of services or a loan, etc.) is created between Company A, which is being prepared for bankruptcy, and its affiliated Company B.

The status of the creditor whose claims are secured by means of a pledge (hereinafter referred to as a “pledge creditor”) in the bankruptcy proceedings is often named as the privileged one. This status provides not only the “privileges” to such a creditor but also imposes a number of serious restrictions in comparison to the status of a regular bankruptcy creditor.