The 2015 reform of the Russian law of obligations (changes to the relevant section of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – the Civil Code) came into force on June 1, 2015) may have a major impact on bankruptcy proceedings. The implementation of the new legal doctrines has only just begun, yet the first cases to reach the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation have already revealed major issues.

In a previous article, The Eagle and the Bear: Russian Proceedings Recognized Under Chapter 15, we discussed In re Poymanov, in which the Bankruptcy Court (SDNY) recognized a Russian foreign proceeding under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code even though the debtor had only nominal assets in the United States (the “Recognition Order”). The Bankruptcy Court had declined to rule upon recognition whether the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C.

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

On 21 December 2017 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued clarifications on the liability of controlling parties in the event of bankruptcy.1 These clarifications are important for shareholders and company management, since the changes to the Law on Bank ruptcy and current case law have extended the scope of liability of controlling parties in the event of bankruptcy.

The main cases where controlling parties can be held liable are:

(1) the declaration of bankruptcy of the debtor was not filed in pro per time;

A non-use court action is routine for the IP court. Every year several hundred cases are considered and granted. Sometimes, however, a cancellation action stumbles at unexpected obstacles.

On March 23 2017 the Federal Tax Service issued a notification entitled On Identifying the Circumstances of an Unjustified Tax Benefit (ED-5-9/547@), which summarises the law enforcement practice associated with assessing the validity of a tax benefit in disputes relating to bad-faith contracting parties.

This review concerns a number of amendments to Federal Law "On insolvency"1 (the "Law") introduced by federal laws No. 222-FZ2 and No. 488-FZ3, and the interpretation of the amendments in the Review of Court Practice on Matters Related to Participation of State Authorities in Insolvency Proceedings and Procedures Applicable in these Proceedings, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 20 December 2016 (the "Review").

This review covers the following most important amendments:

On July 31, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recognized a Russian insolvency proceeding as a foreign main proceeding under chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (“Code”), concluding that (i) a retainer deposited with the debtor’s attorneys in the U.S. was sufficient property within the United States to establish jurisdiction over a debtor under section 109(a) of the Code and (ii) the Russian insolvency proceeding was not “manifestly contrary to public policy of the United States.”

The key to understanding how the transfer of immovable property and service provision works for specialised companies in Russia.

The maintenance activities of Russian specialised companies (SPVs) are not only limited to charter activities. This article looks at the transfer of immovable property to a SPV balance and the transfer of service provision to standby service agents in Russia.

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.).