Where the Courts Service failed to notify the Land Registry of a bankruptcy petition with the effect that property was disposed of without a pending action having been registered, the trustee in bankruptcy had a right to claim damages.

The making of a bankruptcy order alone will not deprive a judgment creditor of a final charging order where it is obtained before the bankruptcy order is made.

To avoid an asset reverting to a bankrupt after the end of his period of bankruptcy, the asset must be realised. An assignment of a beneficial interest for a future price does not amount to a realisation.

The courts have the power to and increasingly will make a civil restraint order where an individual persistently issues claims that are totally without merit.

The Russian insolvency legislation mainly consists of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the Civil Code) and the Federal Law No. 127-FZ on insolvency (bankruptcy) dated 26 October 2002 (the Insolvency Law), the principal legislation on insolvency in the Russian Federation.

This legal update gives an overview of the key amendments to Federal Law No 127 - FZ "On insolvency (bankruptcy)" dated 26 October 2002 (the Insolvency Law) and Federal Law No 40 - FZ "On insolvency (bankruptcy) of credit organisations" dated 25 February 1999 (the Insolvency Law of Credit Organisations).

On 17 April 2009 the Russian State Duma adopted Federal Law No 73 - FZ - "On amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation" (the 73-FZ Law).

Where a debtor's assets exceed his liabilities, the onus is on the debtor to prove he can not pay his debts if a creditor seeks to annul the bankruptcy order.

In Paulin v Paulin and another, the defendant petitioned for his own bankruptcy claiming he was unable to pay his debts. The claimant applied for the order to be annulled claiming the defendant could afford to pay his debts and was deliberately attempting to defeat her claims in the matrimonial proceedings.

Where the entirety of a debt is not included in an agreement to settle, a creditor can continue to prove in a bankruptcy for the balance.

An intervening bankruptcy will not defeat a charging order where the bankruptcy was entered into in an attempt to frustrate the charge.