The Russian government has introduced a bankruptcy moratorium with effect from 1 April to 1 October 2022 in respect of all Russian legal entities and individuals (“Persons“) except for certain residential real estate developers.

The moratorium is intended to protect Russian debtors against creditors’ claims and provide support for players on the Russian market given the challenging environment they operate in.

The key consequences of the introduction of the moratorium regime are as follows:

1. Introduction

As in other jurisdictions, Russia’s insolvency legislation is based on the pari passu principle. However, this principle is subject to certain exceptions, specifically with respect to shareholders and other non-arm’s length creditors, such as the controlling persons of an insolvent company (“Affiliated Creditors”).

In practice, Affiliated Creditors use other instruments (e.g. loans, intergroup supplies etc.) to have their claims listed in the creditors’ register of an insolvent company.

Russia's Supreme Court guidelines reduce high net worth individuals' ("HNWIs") asset protection opportunities and potentially create risks of additional creditor claims against HNWIs after divorce and asset division between the HNWI and his/her spouse.1

In addition, these guidelines enable third parties, notably creditors of the ex-spouse, to get access to information regarding the HNWI's disputed assets. We summarize the most important points of these guidelines below.

Key developments

General context

The statutory regulation of cryptocurrency in Russia is yet to be made compatible with the current dynamics of digital assets.

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.

Definition of controlling person clarified

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener

Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer