ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. White & Case LLC 4 Romanov Pereulok 125009 Moscow Russia + 7 495 787 3000 + 7 495 787 3001 Amendments to Insolvency Law March 2015 ClientAlert Financial Restructuring and Insolvency In December 2014, amendments were introduced to the Federal Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” No. 127-FZ, dated 26 October 2002 (“Insolvency Law”).
This issue reviews the most important recent changes to the regime of challenging transactions made by debtors in anticipation of insolvency. These changes were introduced in the Resolution adopted at the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation (the “Supreme Commercial Court”) No. 63 “Certain Matters Relating to the Application of Chapter III.1 of the Federal Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”1 dated 23 December 2010 (the “Resolution”).2
In 2013 bankruptcy case law has been affected by significant changes in the legislation concerning subsidiary liability of controlling persons and on regulating the bankruptcy of certain categories of debtors including developers and financial organisations.
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
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.
For the attention of company managers and financial, tax, legal and litigation departments.
Pepeliaev Group advises of the publication, on 13 February 2013, of Resolution No. 11 of the Plenum of the Russian Supreme Arbitration Court (SAC) dated 25 January 2013 “On paying value added tax when the property of an insolvent debtor is disposed of”. This resolves, to the benefit of creditors and buyers of bankrupt companies’ property, issues relating to the procedure and regime for paying VAT.
Постановление Девятого арбитражного апелляционного суда от 19.06.2012
Участники спора
Конкурсный управляющий
ЗАО «Цифровая электроника» ЗАО «Цифровая электроника» (Должник)
ОАО «СИТРОНИКС» (сторона оспариваемой сделки с Должником, Кредитор)
Фабула дела
Resolution of the Ninth Commercial (‘Arbitration’) Court of Appeal
dated 19 June 2012
Parties in dispute
Receiver of Digital Electronics CJSC
Digital Electronics CJSC (the “Debtor”)
SITRONICS OJSC (a party to the challenged transaction with the Debtor, the “Creditor”)
Narrative
The issue of the fee for an insolvency practitioner affects every single person involved in insolvency (bankruptcy) proceedings. It is known that the receiver’s fee is generally paid out of the debtor’s assets. Accordingly, the higher the fee, the fewer the assets that remain to satisfy creditors’ claims, restore the debtor to solvency and distribute the liquidation surplus among the members.
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.