Insolvency (Bankruptcy) Procedure: Quo Vadis?

The paper examines the conceptual role of the insolvency (bankruptcy) procedure and the emerging trend towards the dominance of this legal mechanism over other (basic) legal categories. Three key categories are given as examples: the institute of non-interference in private affairs, which in the opposite case is transformed into intervention; the institute of limited liability of the founder (participant) and their legal entity, which presupposes a clear separation of the property masses of these subjects; and the institute of limitation period. It is proved that the bankruptcy procedure modifies the perception of the mentioned categories. Intervention becomes acceptable, which finds expression, for example, in the admissibility of challenging transactions and analyzing the debtor’s economic activities. The boundaries of the assets of a legal entity and an individual are blurred out in the context of the institution of subsidiary liability in bankruptcy. Only the statute of limitations, due to current court practice, is still subject to fewer changes, which are nevertheless present.
The author concludes that it is unacceptable to consider the institution of bankruptcy as an instrument of unlimited suppression of other legal structures in favor of the interests of the creditor community. An attempt has been made to demonstrate that the legal essence of the institution of insolvency is much broader than is commonly believed. This, in turn, explains the inadmissibility and danger of perceiving bankruptcy proceedings as a kind of «sacred» legal phenomenon.

1. Achkasov LA. Lifting the corporate veil doctrine: Legislative regulation. Vestnik arbitrazhnoy praktiki. 2021;4:32- 36. (In Russ.).

2. Arkhipova AG, Baybak VV, Gromov SA, et al. Substitution of parties as to obligation and responsibility for violation of an obligation: Commentary on Articles 330–333, 380–381, 382–406.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Edited by Karapetov AG. Moscow: M-Logos Publ.; 2022. (In Russ.).

3. Artemova AN. The «lifting the corporate veil» doctrine as a response to the abuse of law by persons controlling the corporation. Yurist [Jurist]. 2019;11:36-42. (In Russ.).

4. Asoskov AV. Conflict of laws regulation of corporate cover removal. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review]. 2013;5:120-144. (In Russ.).

5. Asoskov AV. Preventive terms and their relation to other types of civil law terms. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review]. 2018;4:46-73. (In Russ.).

6. Baybak VV, Bevzenko RS, Budylin SL, et al. Transactions, representation, limitation period: An article-by-article commentary on Articles 153–208 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Edited by Karapetov AG. Moscow: M-Logos Publ.; 2018. [Electronic edition. Edition 1.0]. (In Russ.).

7. Belyaeva OA, Burlakov SA, Vildanova MM, et al. Modern corporate law: Current problems of theory and practice. A monograph. Edited by Gutnikov OV. Moscow: IZiSP, Statut Publ.; 2021. (In Russ.).

8. Berezina EA. Interference in other people’s contractual relations in tort law. In: Egorova AV, Novitskaya AA, editors. Contracts and obligations. A collection of paper by graduates of the Russian School of Private Law. Vol. 2: A special part. Moscow: RShChP Publ.; 2018. (In Russ.).

9. Budylin SL, Ivanets YL. Ripping off the covers. Lifting the corporate veil doctrine in foreign countries and in Russia. Vestnik VAS RF. 2013;7:80-125. (In Russ.).

10. Chuprunov AS. Theses for the scientific and practical round table «Intervention in contractual relations». Available from: https://m-logos.ru/img/Tezis_Chuprunov_M-Logos.pdf. (In Russ.).

11. Egorov AV, Usacheva KA. «Lifting the corporate veil» doctrine as a tool for distributing risks between the participants of the corporation and other parties of civil relations. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review]. 2014;1:31-73. (In Russ.).

12. Gabov AV, Gubin EP, Karelina SA, et al. Corporate law: A textbook. Edited by Shitkina IS. Moscow: Statut Publ.; 2019. (In Russ.).

13. Guna AN. Coordination of claims against debtors on different grounds. Overcoming Dogma. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii. 2021;7:165-190. (In Russ.).

14. Kopyakov AA. The problem of compensation for net economic losses in Russian civil law. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review]. 2020;1:146-196. (In Russ.).

15. Krasheninnikov EA. The concept and subject of limitation period. Yaroslavl; 1997. (In Russ.).

16. Kurbanov BM, Usacheva KA. The institute of out-of-court challenge. What nuances should be taken into account in practice. Arbitrazhnaya praktika dlya yuristov. 2017;1:83-86. (In Russ.).

17. Kuznetsov AA. Transfer of a share in the authorized capital (shares): Practical and theoretical problems. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review]. 2023;3:62-98; 4:7-54. (In Russ.).

18. Levitin JA. Business Bankruptcy: Financial Restructuring and Modern Commercial Markets. Third Edition. 2022. Lomakin DV. Commercial corporations as subjects of corporate legal relations: A study guide. Moscow: Statut Publ.; 2020. (In Russ.).

19. Lomakin DV. The lifting of corporate veil concept: Implementation of its main provisions in the current legislation and the draft amendments to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Vestnik VAS. 2012;9:6-33. (In Russ.).

20. Meyer DI. Russian civil law (in 2 parts). Based on the 8th ed., revised and supplemented; 1902. 3rd ed., rev. Moscow: Statut Publ.; 2003. (In Russ.).

21. Miftakhutdinov RT. The evolution of the institution of subsidiary liability in bankruptcy: Causes and consequences of legal reform. Zakon. 2018;5:187-191. (In Russ.).

22. Momzikova M. The person controlling the debtor: Who will be accountable for the company’s debts? Yuridicheskiy spravochnik rukovoditelya. 2021;2:42-47. (In Russ.).

23. Osipov VA. Invalidation of transactions of persons who dishonestly interfere into contractual relations. Arbitrazhnye spory. 2021;4. (In Russ.).

24. Osmanova DO. Reasonable intervention in the conditions of the debtor’s insolvency (bankruptcy). Khozyaystvo i pravo [Business and Law]. 2021;6:95-104. (In Russ.).

25. Pauceanu AM. Understanding the Ecosystem and Starting a Business. Guidelines for Starting and Managing Businesses. 2016. Pp. 119–144.

26. Shmakova EN. On the issue of determining the limits of the principle of limited liability (analysis of legislation). Vestnik arbitrazhnoy praktiki. 2017;5:72-77. (In Russ.).

27. Sviridenko OM. Transactions detrimental to the creditors beyond the insolvency proceedings (out-of-court challenge). Aktual’nye problemy rossijskogo prava. 2020;2:105-112. (In Russ.).

28. Tarasov PA. The ratio of the responsibility of the party who violated the obligation and the tort liability of the unfair interventionist. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii. 2020;10:135-154. (In Russ.).

29. Ulyanov AV. On invalidation of transactions on the basis of interference into contractual relations. Commentary on court practice. Edited by Yaroshenko KB. Moscow: IZiSP, Kontrakt Publ.; 2019. Vol. 25. Pp. 19–34. (In Russ.).

30. Usacheva KA. The basics of out-of-court challenge in German and Austrian law. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii. 2017;11:131-176. (In Russ.).

31. Vereshchagin A, Rumak V. The principle of limited liability has actually been abolished in our country [Interview with D.I. Stepanov]. Zakon. 2020;11:8-19. (In Russ.).