may 2020
GENERAL STAFF BUILDING
OF THE STAGE HERMITAGE MUSEUM
organisers LF

IV International
Insolvency Forum

Participate
IV International Insolvency Forum is scheduled for May 2020.
IV International Insolvency Forum, due to take place as part of the X St. Petersburg International Legal Forum, once again promises to serve as an unrivalled platform bringing together insolvency professionals from around the world. They will include executive government officials, lawmakers, judges, court-appointed receivers, attorneys, academics, entrepreneurs, and envoys from numerous international institutions involved in matters of insolvency.

IIF Speakers 2019

IIF 2019 Business Programme

May, 15 (Wednesday)

18.30
-
20.00

Reception of the International Insolvency Forum

Event Partner: Law Firm “RKT”

May, 16 (Thusday)

08.30
-
10.00

Business Breakfast "Bankrupt 2025: an extinct fossil?"

Organizer – business daily Vedomosti


The year 2025. The majority of citizens have declared bankruptcy without money for the procedure. Having been brought to subsidiary liability, the controlling persons of companies also declared bankruptcy. Most firms are liquidated, and those remaining are controlled by the government. Banks and insurance companies now belong to the government. Lawyers who have accompanied the bankruptcy proceedings have lost their opportunity to earn their livelihood.

This cannot be. Or can it? The number of bankruptcy cases is currently breaking records: in 2018, they exceeded 25% in the practice of the Board for economic disputes of the Supreme court of the Russian Federation, thus outnumbering all other categories of cases. The number of loans has reached a critical level because of the credit and mortgage boom. The simplification of the bankruptcy procedure for citizens left penniless is being publicly discussed; meanwhile, scientists fear that a tightening of subsidiary liability will lead to the disappearance of controlling persons and the business. The public sector is growing rapidly, especially in the banking sphere.

The questions to be discussed at the business breakfast are whether bankruptcy will survive as a market institution, and what the prospects for its support are.

Moderator:
Sergey Kovalev, Managing partner, Kovalev Tugushi and partners

Speakers:
• Evgeniy Akimov, Managing Director, Head of the Forced Recovery and Bankruptcy Department, Sberbank
• Denis Almakaev, Counsel, Hogan Lovells
• Vladimir Bublikov, Partner, RCT
• Evgeny Gurchenko, Head of Litigation Practice (St. Petersburg), Egorov Puginsky Afanasiev & Partners
• Stepan Guzey, Partner, Lidings
• Pavel Khlyustov, Managing partner, Pavel Khlyustov and Partners
• Anton Krasnikov, Partner, Sotby
• Artem Kukin, Managing partner, Infralex
• Rustem Miftakhutdinov, Head of Insolvency Proceedings Unit, Rosneft Oil Company PJSC, Russian Federation
• Vladimir Nazarenko, Vice president, State Development Corporation VEB.RF
• Eduard Olevinskiy, Chairman, Olevinsky, Buyukyan and Partners Legal Affairs; Head, Committee on the Financial Provision of Liability within Bankruptcy Proceedings, Russian Union of Self-Regulated Organizations of Arbitration Managers
• Kirill Udovichenko, Partner, Monastyrsky Zyuba Stepanov & Partners

10.00
-
11.30

Opening Ceremony of the International Insolvency Forum

Moderator:

Elena Borisenko
Elena Borisenko

Chairman, International Insolvency Forum; Deputy Chairman of the Board of Management, Gazprombank

Speakers:

Konstantin Chekmyshev
Konstantin Chekmyshev

Deputy Head, Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation

Anna Joubin-Bret

Secretary, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)

Richard Monds

Director, International Association of Insolvency Regulators (IAIR); Director of Insolvency, Northern Ireland Insolvency Service

Nikolai Nikolaev

Chairman of the Committee of the State Duma on Natural Resources, Property and Land Relations, Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation

12.00

13.30

Implementation of Rescue Culture (chaired by the INSOL Europe)

Where liquidation used to be a standard in insolvency proceedings, a new era has developed in the insolvency practice; rescue rather than liquidation.

According to the European Commission's assessment in 2016, every year about 200 000 firms in the European Union go bankrupt, resulting in over 1.7 million people losing their jobs.

The proposal on preventive restructuring frameworks was presented by the Commission on 22 November 2016. The overall objective of the text is to reduce the most significant barriers to the free flow of capital stemming from differences in member states' restructuring and insolvency frameworks and to enhance the rescue culture in the European Union. In doing so, the proposal aims to strike an appropriate balance between the interests of the debtors and the creditors.

The most important points are the following:

• Access to preventive restructuring frameworks

• Appointment of the practitioner in the field of restructuring

• Stay of individual enforcement actions

• Cross-class cram-down mechanism

Members States shall ensure that effective preventive restructuring framework are available for debtors in financial difficulty when there is a likelihood of insolvency, but there is also a fear that debtors with no prospect of viability will largely apply for these tools which would cause unnecessary delays of the opening of an insolvency procedure and would risk decreasing the value of the estate.

Thus, the European Parliament proposes to allow the Member States who deem it necessary to introduce a viability test as a condition for access to preventive restructuring frameworks, provided that this test is carried out without detriment to the debtor’s assets. The absence of detriment does not exclude however the possibility to require debtors to prove their viability at their own costs.

The session will also cover different issues related to rehabilitation procedures in the Russian Federation, such as a financial sanation, an administration, an amicable agreement. Representatives of the Russian insolvency community, together with their foreign colleagues, will share their expertise in de jure and de facto business rehabilitations, will speak on a real business rescue in the course of bankruptcy proceedings, and present the cases of successful rehabilitation procedures based on all possible scenarios (an amicable agreement at the supervision stage, an amicable agreement at some other stage, an administration, a receivership based on leasing or custody).

Co-Moderators:

Evert Verwey

Co-opted Director, Co-chair, Eastern European Countries’ Committee, INSOL Europe; Council, Clifford Chance, Netherlands

Emmanuelle Inacio
Emmanuelle Inacio

Co-chair, High-Level Course on Insolvency, INSOL Europe

Speakers:

Cristina Fussi

Co-Chair, Insolvent Financial Institutions Subcommittee, IBA Insolvency Section; Partner, De Berti Jacchia Law Firm, Italy

Carrie-Ann James
Carrie-Ann James

Vice-President, Insolvency Practitioners Association; Director, Benedict Mackenzie, UK

Edward Olevinsky
Edward Olevinsky

Head, Advisory Council, Russian Union of Self-Regulated Organizations of Arbitration Managers

Artur Trapitsyn
Artur Trapitsyn

Member of Board, Russian Union of Self-Regulated Organizations of Arbitration Managers; Chairman, Self-Regulated Organization of Arbitration Managers "Merkuriy"

14.30
-
16.30

Digital Technologies in Insolvency Procedures

It has recently become more evident than ever that our perception of operations in insolvency proceedings is changing under the influence of mass-scale changes in IT domain. Artificial intellect, computer systems, e-document flow – all these things change our view of a legal domain. There are some directions that have already become or are becoming just now inseparable from new technologies.

Every professional engaged in insolvency procedures inevitably uses digital information resources that have developed in the recent years from doubtful incomplete and hardly reliable data sources to appropriate information systems. The established resources containing information on litigations, including insolvency cases, such as kad.arbitr.ru and the Unified Federal Register of Data on Bankruptcy are much more user-friendly than traditional hard-copy archives. However, new challenges are permanently appearing in this field. There are still no reliable statistics free from information glut and original data misrepresentation. Insolvency analytics and insolvency litigations forecasting based on big data are only being devised.

Digital technologies have also gradually changed our perception of auctions. It is hard to believe that some ten years ago the idea of electronic auctions within an insolvency procedure looked innovative but hardly implementable. And now it is quite natural while traditional auction procedures are perceived as obsolete. One should just have a look at estate sales upon enforcement to see the progress achieved in insolvency procedures, despite all drawbacks of forward auctions.

New technologies also provide for substantial reduction of insolvency procedure support costs thanks to automation of the most typical transactions, and for serious decrease in the number of technical errors (such as missing vitally important deadlines). The issue is resolved by special software. There are special software applications facilitating insolvency administrators’ operations and giving them the opportunity to plan, to publish messages and to draft master documents. Bankro.TECH – a complex product matching all types of insolvency parties, claims being very special. It organizes the key data on the case, classifies all and any individual disputes and related cases, provides for electronic meetings of creditors and committees of creditors, simulates the outcomes of the meetings.

Digital technologies applicable to enforced recovery not only create new opportunities and challenges but also add new risks to the customary environment. The risks of loss or misrepresentation of digital data or unauthorized access thereto appear. And we become more dependent on gadgets as no appropriate work is possible without them any more. The increasing transparency of the insolvency environment enhances the responsibility as any action may become visible to everybody, and, as the result, some parties not ready to work in the changed environment may leave the market.

The abovementioned issues will be discussed by digital insolvency professionals, developers of special software, representatives of the professional community, Russian and foreign lawyers.

Moderator:

Aleksey Karpenko
Aleksey Karpenko

Senior Partner, Law Firm “Forward Legal”, Russian Federation

Speakers:

Evgeniy Akimov

Managing Director – Head of Enforcement and Bankruptcy Division, Department of Distressed Assets, SBERBANK, Russian Federation

Ruth Duncan
Ruth Duncan

President (former), Insolvency Practitioners Association; Director, Maxwell Davies Limited, UK

David Hahn
David Hahn

Guardian General and Official Receiver of Israel (former); Professor, Bar-Ilan University School of Law

Dmitriy Konovalov
Dmitriy Konovalov

Executive Director, “Russian Information Technologies”

Konstantin Raev
Konstantin Raev

First Deputy CEO, Auction House of the Russian Federation

Aleksey Yukhnin
Aleksey Yukhnin

Director for Development of Projects, Interfax Information Group, Head of Fedresurs, Russian Federation

17.00

18.30

Bringing the Controlling and Dependent Persons to Subsidiary Liability in Insolvency Procedures (chaired by the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation)

By the beginning of 2019 steady judicial practice of bringing the controlling persons to liability as well as examples of exposure and elimination of the withdrawal schemes of debtor’s assets have been accumulated.

A large percentage of unsatisfied creditors' claims in insolvency proceedings is due to the fact that many companies hide their actual beneficiaries and have a non-transparent asset ownership structure allowing unscrupulous businessmen to evade paying taxes and other creditors’ claims.

With a view to overcome this negative trend it is necessary to increase the transparency of business corporate structures as well as of the company in respect of which an insolvency procedure is initiated.

If the creditors know who are the beneficiaries of the debtor's business and its controlling persons they may use such an important tool as subsidiary liability of the controlling persons in cases where debtor's property is insufficient. Thus, claims for the debt recovery to the controlling persons will be submitted on behalf of the creditors. The controlling persons in order to avoid their own subsidiary liability have a motive to conclude a settlement agreement in the bankruptcy procedure or to choose another option for the debt restructuring.

Often the unfair practice in bankruptcy proceedings is possible due to the dependence of bankruptcy managers on the debtor’s main creditors. If there is available information about the controlling persons, independent creditors have an option to demand the debt recovery from liable persons in cases where bankruptcy manager does not bring such claims.

In this regard it seems promising to bring actual beneficiaries not only in civil law procedures to subsidiary liability but also to criminal liability for the crimes committed in the course of bankruptcy.

Moderator:

Kirill Kharitonov
Kirill Kharitonov

Head of Bankruptcy Procedures Ensurance Administration, Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation

Speakers:

Aleksandr Avdeyko
Aleksandr Avdeyko

Head of Legal Department, Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation

Elena Borisenko
Elena Borisenko

Deputy Chairman of the Board of Management, Gazprombank, Russian Federation

Konstantin Chekmyshev

Deputy Head, Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation

Rustem Miftakhutdinov
Rustem Miftakhutdinov

Head of Insolvency Proceedings Unit, Rosneft Oil Company PJSC, Russian Federation

Samira Musayeva
Samira Musayeva

Senior Legal Officer, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)

Ivan Razumov
Ivan Razumov

Judge, Head of Judicial Division, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

Alexander Trunk
Alexander Trunk

Professor, Director of the Institute of East European Studies of Kiel University, Germany

May, 17 (Friday)

10.30

12.00
Enforcement Proceedings, Insolvency (Bankruptcy), Enforcement Endorsements: Notaries’, Administrators’ and Enforcement Officers’ Opinions. Should Enforcement Proceedings be Placed in the Hands of Private Entities?

The stability of civil commerce is assured by the security of lenders’ claims against borrowers. It is impossible to foster a high level of trust between entities of the marketplace, unless the guarantees are in place that creditors’ claims will be satisfied. In the absence of such guarantees, investment risks will mount and so, necessarily, will the costs of borrowing. Affordable loans, coupled with balanced investment costs, are the key prerequisite for the economic growth of a nation and for a high living standard of its populace. Therefore, the importance of effective lender remedies for economic growth is practically impossible to overestimate. First and foremost, this concerns the methods of debt recovery. The most widespread methods of debt recovery for the time being are enforcement action and insolvency. Another recovery method – notary’s writ of execution – is also well on its way.

Each of these methods has its peculiarities, and is subject to individual legal regulation. The legal regulation of debt recovery may vary quite substantially from one jurisdiction to another, however there are some essential constants. A notarial writ of execution applies only in the instances of uncontested recovery. Insolvency is a court proceeding based on the balancing of interests between the creditors and the debtor. And enforcement action is a public/private recovery mechanism propelled by the powers of government agencies or professional private institutions.

Lenders will enjoy access to any of these options where the appropriate legal basis is provided by law. In some cases, the lender will face a trade-off between these procedures. The choice has to be made case by case for, given the nature of the circumstance, these procedures may vary in their cost to the lender, and their end-result may also vary, even within the same set of circumstances.

How does one choose the optimal recovery procedure that fits the particular case at hand? What are some of the advantages of enforcement action versus insolvency, and vice versa? What are the costs to the lender in each of these recovery options? What is the relative frequency of use of these recovery options, according to statistics? Could these procedures benefit from further improvement? For instance, would it make sense for the state to consider the outsourcing of enforcement action powers to specialist private-sector entities? What would be some ways to make insolvency proceedings more affordable so that they start making business sense to the lender? Which variants of lender-borrower relations could, potentially, be assigned to the notarial services sector through the use of the institution of notary’s writ? How long do insolvency proceedings take compared to enforcement proceedings? What are the claim satisfaction rates of these proceedings?

These and other questions will be discussed during the pertinently themed session at the International Insolvency Forum.

The discussions will be attended by delegates of the Federal Service of Court Bailiffs, the Russian Union of Self-Governed Organizations of Insolvency Officers and the Federal Notary Chamber, as well as members of the academic community.

Moderator:

Mikhail Shvarts

Professor, Acting Head of the Civil Procedure Department, Saint-Petersburg State University, Russian Federation

Speakers:

David Hahn
David Hahn

Guardian General and Official Receiver of Israel (former); Professor, Bar-Ilan University School of Law

Aleksandra Ignatenko

Member of the Executive Board, Federal Notary Chamber of Russian Federation

Konstantin Korsik
Konstantin Korsik

President, Federal Notary Chamber of Russian Federation

Kirill Nogotkov
Kirill Nogotkov

Director, Russian Union of Self-Regulated Organizations of Arbitration Managers

Olga Pomigalova
Olga Pomigalova

First Deputy Director of the Federal Bailiffs’ Service - First Deputy Chief Bailiff of the Russian Federation

p
12.30

14.15

Liability of Insolvency Administrators

The search for the due approach to the liability of insolvency administrators who have, by virtue of their profession, to exist under the permanent conflict of everybody’s interests, is one of the most relevant issues for the Russian bankruptcy community. On one hand, insolvency administrators refer to numerous abuses by both creditors and debtors who are choking administrators with unsubstantiated complaints in order to “make them cooperate” or in order to have their “insiders” appointed. While on the other hand, both the government and creditors are not satisfied with the low level of claims satisfaction in insolvency procedures, the number of violations in insolvency administrators’ operations and insufficient protection of problem companies’ employees.

Recently, the main legislation improvements in relation to the liability of insolvency administrators have aimed at the enhancement thereof. The introduction into the administrative law of a mandatory disqualification for a repeated failure, and the increase of a compensation fund and a maximum payment are among such improvements. The said measures may result in less minor failures; however, statistics show that they have no impact on achievement of the objectives of the law on insolvency: increasing number of rehabilitations, growing number of satisfied creditors’ claims.

Courts, in their turn, when facing complicated situations, cannot reasonably rely upon law and make resolutions on the grounds of their own ideas of fairness and expediency. It results in dramatic shift of the court practice on insolvency administrators’ liability to the regional level as the same actions by an administrator may be assessed differently by courts in different regions.

At our session, we will bring together insolvency administrators, representatives of creditors and government authorities to discuss the possible ways of establishment of the best approaches to insolvency administrator's liability. Foreign experts will share the best global practices.

Moderator:

Aleksey Yukhnin

Director for Development of Projects, Interfax Information Group, Head of Fedresurs, Russian Federation

Speakers:

Vladimir Bublikov
Vladimir Bublikov

Partner, RCT Law Firm, Russian Federation

Ruth Duncan
Ruth Duncan

President (former), Insolvency Practitioners Association; Director, Maxwell Davies Limited, UK

Richard Monds

Director, International Association of Insolvency Regulators (IAIR); Director of Insolvency, Northern Ireland Insolvency Service

Vladimir Nazarenko
Vladimir Nazarenko

Vice-President, VEB.RF, Russian Federation

Mikhail Nikolaev
Mikhail Nikolaev

Branch Manager, the Union “Self-Regulating Organization of Insolvency Receivers of North-West Russia” (Branch in Irkutsk Region), Russian Federation

Kirill Nogotkov
Kirill Nogotkov

Director, Russian Union of Self-Regulated Organizations of Arbitration Managers

Evert Verwey

Co-opted Director, Co-chair, Eastern European Countries’ Committee, INSOL Europe; Council, Clifford Chance, Netherlands

12.30

14.00

Uncommon Instruments to Secure Bankruptcy Claims in the Russian Federation Legal System: What Are the Measures to Protect a Creditor?

According to statistics unsecured bankruptcy claims satisfy not more than 1.7% of a debt. Meanwhile, secured claims usually filed by banks satisfy almost 20% of a debt. The primary instrument to create collateral rights is a contractual lien which is traditionally used in lending.

Creditors who are not engaged in this business on a professional level cannot benefit from this instrument due to a specific nature of noncredit relationships.

These creditors are able to benefit from the lien right of set-off and so called lien stemmed from asset seizure (England, Germany, France).

The session is supposed to discuss these two models securing claims, being the lien right stemmed from asset seizure (Article 174.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) and set-off (Article 410 of the the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Contrary to other countries, the case law of the Russian Federation does not acknowledge these tools for bankruptcy cases, and this adversely affects civil-right transactions and the rights of unsecured creditors including major companies actively engaging contractors with an authorized body.

Moderator:

Rustem Miftakhutdinov
Rustem Miftakhutdinov

Head of Insolvency Proceedings Unit, Rosneft Oil Company PJSC, Russian Federation

Speakers:

Ekaterina Abasheeva
Ekaterina Abasheeva

Chief of Division, Bank of Russia

Konstantin Grichanin
Konstantin Grichanin

Deputy Head of Litigation Department, Rosneft Oil Company PJSC, Russian Federation

Stephan Madaus
Stephan Madaus

Professor, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany

Andrei Smirnykh
Andrei Smirnykh

Project Director, Sberbank

Yuliy Tay
Yuliy Tay

Managing Partner, "Bartolius" Law Office, Russian Federation

Oleg Zaytsev
Oleg Zaytsev

Chairman, National Insolvency Association “Insolvency Club”, Russian Federation

15.00

16.30
Consumer Insolvency (chaired by the Committee of the State Duma on Natural Resources, Property and Land Relations)

The institution of a personal bankruptcy was introduced in the Russian Federation in 2015. Since then (during the 3 years) we have witnessed a considerable growth of the number of personal bankruptcy cases. Thus, in 2018 Russian courts issued 43984 judgements of bankruptcy, which is one and a half as much as in 2017.

Amounts paid to creditors under personal bankruptcy procedures are also growing: 5 billion rubles in 2018, which is 3 times more than in 2017.

So, it is evident that both creditors and debtors show more and more interest to personal bankruptcy procedures. However, this debt settlement solution shall be available to a broader circle of individuals than it is pursuant to the applicable law. According to expert reports and federal executive and legislative bodies’ opinions, for personal bankruptcy procedures to perform their social functions, the requirements to a prospective bankrupt for some types of creditors should be simplified. It would provide for more people to use the benefits of this civilized bad debt settlement solution, would give to more people a way out of dealing with collectors, which often causes social upheavals, and would also give creditors the opportunity to claim the borrowed money back though a judicial procedure.

Unfortunately, the draft law being developed to introduce a simplified personal bankruptcy procedure has gone “stuck” at the stage of getting multiple approvals by numerous government agencies. While government bodies and experts argue about the approaches and try to determine the formula for a well-balanced solution that should be “inserted” into the text of the relevant draft law, thousands of individuals with limited budgets, few creditors and small debts cannot, in a civilized manner, get out of the burden of debts they are unable to repay.

What requirements should be set in the draft law for debtors to be eligible to use a simplified personal bankruptcy procedure? Would it be a separate procedure under a bankruptcy law, or the law should just include some exceptions simplifying bankruptcy for some types of debtors? Should there be established the requirement to appoint a receiver for a simplified personal bankruptcy procedure, or individuals are able to go through the intricate wordings of bankruptcy rules and procedures on their own? Would the simplified bankruptcy procedure not lead to a “bankruptcy extremism”? Would the simplified bankruptcy not discourage individuals to meet their commitments? What may be the implications of the respective amendments to the bankruptcy law?

These are the issues to be discussed by judges, representatives of executive bodies, receivers community and lawyers from Russia and abroad.

Moderator:

Nikolai Nikolaev

Chairman of the Committee of the State Duma on Natural Resources, Property and Land Relations, Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation

Speakers:

Irina Bukina

Judge, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

Jason Kilborn
Jason Kilborn

Professor of Law, John Marshall Law School, USA

Luciano Panzani

President, Court of Appeal of Rome

Anjum Rosha

Council, International Monetary Fund (IMF), USA

Alena Rudenko
Alena Rudenko

Project Manager, Nonprofit Foundation “Lawmaking Assistance Center”, Russian Federation

Dmitriy Yanin
Dmitriy Yanin

Chairman of the Board, Confederation of Consumer Societies, Russian Federation

15.00

16.30

Customer Assets Segregation as a Prerequisite for Their Rights Protection upon Bankruptcy of a Financial Institution (chaired by the Bank of Russia)

An effective property rights and other proprietary interests protection is the basis for investors’ trust in a financial market. Investors’ property rights safety is especially important upon transfer of investors’ assets to a financial intermediary for further deals and transactions.

The specifics of the present-day financial markets presuppose dematerialization of traded assets, proprietary rights are represented as entries on accounts of respective financial intermediaries. In view of the relationship between an investor and a financial intermediary, international financial markets regulation standards provide for national regulators to establish the requirements to client assets identification, custody and segregation (separate balances) by certain financial intermediaries.

Therefore, client assets segregation by financial intermediaries shall be deemed a key element of such assets’ legal status providing for clients’ proprietary interests protection.

The law of the Russian Federation includes fixed basic procedures for separation of financial intermediary’s assets from its clients’ assets. However, the said procedures do not presently take into account the multi-level and, sometimes, cross-border character of intermediary relationships. The related regulation gaps have an adverse impact on the national financial market development.

The agenda of the round table will include the following issues:

• Impact of a financial institution’s failure to separate clients’ assets on clients’ proprietary interests protection upon bankruptcy of the financial institution. May such assets return to the client be challenged within the “period of suspicions”?

• Would it be reasonable to include the accounting of client assets (transferred to a financial institution) in the financial institution’s responsibilities?

• Contractual segregation of assets upon bankruptcy: prospects of development, conflict with insolvency (bankruptcy) law mandatory provisions. Contractual segregation application to relationships including foreign elements;

• Different assets (money, securities, goods) segregation: specifics of protection upon bankruptcy of a financial institution;

• Segregation of a financial institution’s liabilities enforceable upon its assets provided as a collateral of such liabilities performance. Release from liabilities in the course of the financial institution’s bankruptcy procedure.

Moderator:

Vladimir Chistyukhin

Deputy Governor, Bank of Russia

Speakers:

Stephan Madaus
Stephan Madaus

Professor, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany

Tamara Manukova
Tamara Manukova

Head of Legal Department, Moscow Exchange, Russian Federation

Tatiana Medvedeva
Tatiana Medvedeva

Senior Legal Advisor, Stock Market Development Center; Consultant of the Department of Legislation on Legal Entities, Private Law Research Centre under the President of the Russian Federation named after S.S. Alexeev

Aleksey Timofeev
Aleksey Timofeev

President, National Association of Securities Market Participants, Russian Federation

Olga Shishlyannikova
Olga Shishlyannikova

First Deputy Director, Securities and Сommodities Мarkets Department, Bank of Russia

17.00

18.30

Asset Tracing

Estate managers and administrators often need to trace and recover debtors’ assets abroad. This task has presented many difficulties for bankruptcy practitioners in Russia, and major creditors often compete with the estate and each other in foreign jurisdictions. This is obviously unfair to the other creditors of the estate, and may also negatively impact the overall recoveries.

The panel will address, among others, the following issues:

1. The major obstacles preventing the estate managers from recovering abroad on behalf of the estate.

2. Opportunities for estate managers abroad.

3. Competition from major creditors. Accountability to the estate.

Moderator:

Vasily Torkanovskiy

Partner, Ivanyan & Partners, Russian Federation

Speakers:

Evgeniy Akimov

Managing Director – Head of Enforcement and Bankruptcy Division, Department of Distressed Assets, SBERBANK, Russian Federation

Yuliya Medvedeva
Yuliya Medvedeva

Director of Expert and Analytics Department, Deposit Insurance Agency, Russian Federation

Kirill Nogotkov

Director, Russian Union of Self-Regulated Organizations of Arbitration Managers

Steven Philippsohn
Steven Philippsohn

Senior Partner, PCB Litigation LLP, UK

Christopher J. Redmond
Christopher J. Redmond

Founder, Redmond Law Firm LLC, USA

The Programme Committee of the International Insolvency Forum is pleased to announce that the submission of the proposals to the future Forum’s Business Programme is open. Please kindly send your ideas and suggestions using the contact form below.

Contact form

Who is it for

  • Business owners

  • Chief legal officers

  • Court-appointed receivers

  • Consulting company partners

  • Chief financial officers

The Forum is:

  • Business events for professionals

    Be in the know about the most recent Russian and international practices and legislative initiatives; listen to the presentations of the world’s top legal experts, government officials, businesspeople and academics.

  • Effective networking

    A chance to talk to the leading experts and regulators, get insider knowledge from the decision makers, make new connections and extend your client portfolio.

  • New opportunities

    The IIF is an excellent place to hold negotiations, meet clients and get things done that otherwise would have taken weeks.

  • Reputational bonus

    Participation in the Forum has a positive effect on you personal image, helping to promote your brand and bolster your business reputation.

  • Exciting cultural programme

    Performances by the top classical music stars, social events, elegant parties, sightseeing tours, bar hopping, dances and rock concerts.

  • Exclusive “membership” club for the legal elite

    There are no “red zones” here; each participant is an equal among equals.

IIF 2019

Participants

2521

Speakers

61

Online
Audience

6282

Business
events

11

Countries

92

Conditions of participation

Participation fee Schedule may be subject to change. Participation fee includes 20% VAT.

17.05.2019
110 000
1700
1505
01.09.2019
120 000
1850
1640
01.11.2019
130 000
01.01.2020
150 000
01.03.2020
160 000
01.05.2020
170 000

Please be advised that the conditions of participation in IV International Insolvency Forum are the same as in X St. Petersburg International Legal Forum

IIF 2020 ALL-DAYS DELEGATE PACKAGE

to 31.08.2019
110 000
1700
1505
Participate

SPECIAL PRICE IIF 2020 ALL-DAYS DELEGATE PACKAGE

For the representatives of commercial organizations, except consulting companies.

to 31.08.2019
66 000
1020
905
Participate

IIF 2020 ONE DAY DELEGATE PACKAGE

Special offer for the representatives of commercial organizations, except consulting companies

to 31.08.2019
49 000
755
670
Participate

IIF 2020 ACCOMPANYING PERSON PACKAGE

Admittance only to official cultural events of the Forum

to 31.08.2019
35 000
540
480
Participate

Any questions left?

The Delegate Management Department will be happy to answer them!
+7(812)449-36-21
delegate@spblegalforum.com