may 15-17 2019
organisers LF

III International
Insolvency Forum

54 days left
III International Insolvency Forum is scheduled for 15-17 May 2019.
III International Insolvency Forum, due to take place as part of the IX 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 participants

IIF 2018





of broadcast

138 900





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 Business Programme

Opening Ceremony of the International Insolvency Forum


Elena Borisenko

Deputy Chairman of the Board of Management, Gazprombank


Dmitry Aristov

Director, Federal Bailiff Service – Chief Bailiff of the Russian Federation

Sidney Brooks

Ret. Chief Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court/District of Colorado

Anna Joubin-Bret

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

Richard Monds

the Chairman of the Executive Committee, 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

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.


Nikolai Nikolaev

Chairman of the Committee of the State Duma on Natural Resources, Property and Land Relations


Sidney Brooks

Ret. Chief Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court/District of Colorado

Irina Bukina

Judge, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

Luciano Panzani

President, Court of Appeal of Rome

Anjum Rosha

Council of the Legal Department, International Monetary Fund (IMF)

Secondary Liability Imposition Practice (chaired by the Russian Federal Tax Service)


Konstantin Chekmyshev

Deputy Head, Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation

Implementation of Rescue Culture (chaired by the INSOL Europe)


Evert Verwey

Co-opted Director, Co-chair, Eastern European Countries’ Committee (EECC), INSOL Europe

Debt Recovery: Competition between Insolvency Procedures, Enforcement Proceedings and Notarial Writ of Execution

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.

Asset Tracing
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.


Aleksey Yukhnin

Director for Development of Projects, Interfax Information Group

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 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.


Evgeniy Akimov

Managing Director, Head of the Forced Recovery and Bankruptcy Department, Sberbank

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


Aleksey Guznov

Director of the Legal Department, Bank of Russia

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

Conditions of participation

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

110 000
130 000
150 000
160 000
170 000

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


till 01.04.2019
150 000


For the representatives of commercial organizations, except consulting companies.

till 01.04.2019
90 000


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

till 01.04.2019
67 000


Admittance only to official cultural events of the Forum

till 01.04.2019
40 000

Any questions left?

The Delegate Management Department will be happy to answer them!