General context

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

Deposit Ins. Agency v. Leontiev, No. 17-MC-00414 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2018) [click for opinion]

Nothing lasts forever – a legal entity may close by choice or circumstance. It is often the case that during liquidation procedures and following settlements with creditors, rights holders are no longer able to manage their trademarks. This article addresses the fate of those trademarks. The liquidation of a legal entity does not automatically result in a transfer of rights and obligations. However, after settlements are made, it is common for the legal entity’s property to be transferred to the founder of that entity that has proprietary or corporate rights.

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

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has obliged a tax authority to check the relevancy of the claim to recognize a debtor as a bankrupt in terms of prospects and economic feasibility of initiating such dispute.

We recently published a blog identifying issues which cryptocurrency pose in insolvencies; not least identifying and classifying it, how to take control of it and realising value for the insolvency estate.

Given cryptocurrencies are global, the question of how to classify cryptocurrency on insolvency is not limited to just one jurisdiction.

The financial Director, who is the controlling person of the debtor, by virtue of the presumption established by law, withdrew from the current account of the debtor funds in the total amount of 1 500 000 rubles. These funds she spent by order of the Director in the period from 14.01.2015 to 13.01.2016.

By carrying out entrepreneurial activities, i.e. independent activities carried out at its own risk, aimed at systematic profit from the use of property, sale of goods, performance of works or provision of services, in conditions of market instability, exchange rate fluctuations and consumer demand, the company may experience signs of bankruptcy.

"Termination of the bankruptcy procedure is not the basis for termination of proceedings on the application for bringing to subsidiary liability of controlling persons of the debtor" - this is the conclusion reached by the Supreme court of the Russian Federation considering the complaint of the creditor-applicant in the bankruptcy case.

"17" November 2017 completed the procedure of bankruptcy proceedings of the debtor LLC "Novaport", case A40-70634/2016.

A brief presentation of the essay on the subsidiary liability of shareholders and directors by comparing the approach adopted by the Russian Courts – as recently confirmed by the Supreme Courts – with those of other legal systems, the Italian one in particular, to the debated topic of the identification of the circumstances the occurrence of which make it possible to pierce the corporate veil, a topic that would deserve further attention by the Italian legislators, too.