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.

1. Adoption and entry into force of the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Procedure dated March 8, 2015, No. 21-FZ

In October 2016, the Chamber for Commercial Disputes at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered the cassation appeal of Eurasian Trading Company LLC (hereinafter – the Trading Company) in Case № А57-16992/2015 against the court’s refusal to introduce monitoring procedures with respect to RBP JSC (hereinafter – the Debtor) and decision to dismiss the application by the Trading Company without consideration.

I. Кредитор не вправе требовать исполнения первоначального обязательства до истечения установленного сторонами срока предоставления отступного   (КБ   "ЭКОНОМИКС-БАНК"   (ООО)   v.   ООО "Мясное подворье". Дело №ВАС-2504/14)

On 30 July 2012, the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation (the “SCC”) released a Review of its rulings of the Presidium of the SCC on major issues of private law for June 2012. In particular, the Review indicated that during bankruptcy proceedings, a creditor’s claim upheld by an arbitration ruling may be included in the list of creditors without a writ of execution.  

Specifics of enforcing the consequences of the invalidity of a transaction whereby a pledgeholder leaves pledged property in its ownership.

(ruling No. VAS-14907/11 dated 20 March 2012)

By the above ruling, the Supreme Arbitration Court (SAC) has actually reinforced the specifics of enforcing the consequences of a transaction transferring a debtor’s pledged property being invalid if it is not possible to restore the parties to their initial position.

On 30 July 2012, the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation (the “SCC”) released its Review of rulings of the Presidium of the SCC (the “Review”) on major issues of private law for June 2012. In particular, the Review highlights that in bankruptcy proceedings a creditor’s claim upheld by an arbitration ruling may be included in the list of creditors without a writ of execution.

Circumstances of the case

The COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act (the Act) will have a considerable impact on the enforcement of certain contracts and commercial disputes in Singapore for the next 6 to 12 months. The Act was passed by the Singapore Parliament, and commenced on the same day, 7 April 2020.

The key measures of the Act are:

Introduction

Singapore is positioning itself as a hub for insolvency and restructuring.(1) In particular, there has been an increase in cases of cross-border restructuring in Singapore.(2)