The preclusive term for proof of claim filling generates a large amount of problematic situations connected with an unreasonable decrease in the creditor’s claims priority (considered in the article), which, in the author’s opinion, is a violation of the basic principle of bankruptcy law — pari passu principle. The judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and recent changes in legislation are expressed in support of this position. The approaches of foreign countries to the solution of this issue are studied in the framework of the article as well. Based on this comparative legal analysis, the author suggests this tension is to be resolved by either extending the number of cases with terms eligible to be included in the register of creditors’ claims, or, alternatively, the preclusive term could be abandoned altogether. Until recently, legislation and judicial practice developed in the former direction. However, the amendments to the Insolvency (Bankruptcy) Law proposed by the Supreme Court in November 2018 demonstrate that the court rather prefers not to consider this term as preclusive.
Author: Ayvar Malikov, associate in the dispute resolution practice of the Law Firm INTEGRITES.
The article was published in the journal “Herald of economic justice of Russia” №1 January, 2019 (paid material).
Эта запись также доступна на: Russian