On April 29, 2026, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation approved Thematic Review No. 5/2026 on judicial practice in bankruptcy disputes for 2025. It includes 26 legal positions addressing key aspects of bankruptcy, such as challenging debtor’s transactions, formation of the bankruptcy estate, and the activities of the bankruptcy trustee.
Creditors’ claims and formation of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate
Point 1: It has been established that a pledge arising under Article 73 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation grants the tax authority the status of a secured creditor in bankruptcy proceedings.
I note that this position has somewhat softened compared to previous clarifications. If previously it was allowed that secured rights arising from a tax lien were not themselves contestable transactions, now the Court allows for the possibility of their challenge under specific grounds, within the framework of case consideration. In my opinion, this is justified to prevent dishonest behavior by authorized bodies.
Point 2: The authorized body’s demand for payment of tax arrears and the decision to enforce it remain valid until the taxpayer fully settles the negative balance of the unified tax account.
I believe this point is closely linked to previously issued clarifications. I consider that this simplification of the procedure for initiating debtor bankruptcy by the authorized body, as confirmed by this point, again indicates the priority of fiscal interests and grants procedural advantages to tax authorities.
Point 3: A demand for payment of single-tariff insurance contributions by the debtor is included in the second priority of the creditors’ claims register.
Point 4: After the secured creditor’s claim is satisfied and necessary expenses are paid, the remaining proceeds from the sale of a debtor citizen’s pledged sole dwelling are excluded from the bankruptcy estate and transferred to the debtor to ensure their right to housing.
As I believe, this legal position essentially reproduces previous clarifications, according to which the regime of execution immunity should extend to funds that have replaced the sole dwelling. This clarification should encourage debtors and their families to take more active steps in establishing an adequate initial sale price for the pledged property, as the initial valuation proposed by the secured creditor does not always correspond to current market realities.
Point 5: A debtor citizen who fails to inform the bank about other debts when obtaining a consumer loan is not released from their obligations to that bank.
I believe this point is aimed at protecting the property interests of institutional creditors, primarily banks. In my opinion, this again demonstrates the Court’s ‘pro-creditor approach’. Now, as I see it, courts will be able to interpret the provision on the debtor’s dishonest behavior (concealing information about other debts) more broadly and will not release them from their debts if they failed to inform new creditors about existing obligations.
Point 6: Concealment of property and sources of funding for expenses incurred during bankruptcy proceedings by a debtor citizen entails refusal of discharge from debts.
Point 7: When selling the debtor’s accounts receivable at auction, the insolvency trustee must include all interconnected claims in a single lot.
Point 8: Payments received into an insolvent bank’s account, opened with the Bank of Russia by the Deposit Insurance Agency for settlements during bankruptcy proceedings, are deemed to have been received directly by such credit institution.
Point 9: A creditor’s claim expressed in foreign currency is included in the register considering the terms of the agreement on the procedure for converting the debt currency into the payment currency, provided there are no signs of bad faith on the part of the creditor.
Challenging debtor’s transactions and holding parties liable for subsidiary liability
Point 10: It has been established that Article 61.2 of the Bankruptcy Law cannot be used to circumvent the time limitations for challenging transactions that grant preference to one of the creditors, as established by Article 61.3 of the Bankruptcy Law.
I consider this clarification to be timely. Now, in my view, the Court has expressed a similar position on the need to differentiate grounds for challenging preferential transactions and suspicious transactions, which can only be welcomed, as it helps avoid circumvention of the rules on limitation periods.
Point 11: Payments to an employee of a debtor organization may be declared invalid under paragraph 1 of Article 61.2 of the Bankruptcy Law only if their amount is disproportionately (significantly) higher than the average remuneration for similar work in comparable organizations.
This clarification is also relevant. Previously, in the absence of clear criteria, challenging employee payments was a common occurrence, potentially causing undue harm to employees. Now, in my opinion, the Court has provided a clear guideline regarding the amounts of suspiciously high salaries that can be challenged. In my opinion, the Supreme Court has clarified a controversial issue, and I believe that the term “disproportionately” (кратно) in this context means “significantly exceeds,” which will allow courts to approach such cases more thoughtfully.
Point 12: Funds paid by the insolvency trustee in violation of the rules of priority and proportionality of settlements with creditors can be returned to the bankruptcy estate by challenging the payment under Article 61.3 of the Bankruptcy Law. The procedure for resolving disagreements is not applicable to such cases.
Point 13: The counterparty’s bad faith in concluding a transaction with the debtor precludes the qualification of such a transaction as having been made in the ordinary course of business under paragraph 2 of Article 61.4 of the Bankruptcy Law.
Point 14: A debtor’s transaction for the alienation of property cannot be recognized as made with the intent to harm creditors if there is evidence of its bona fide purpose.
Point 15: An agreement concluded by the insolvency trustee concerning the debtor’s property may be declared invalid not only due to violations of auction rules but also due to non-compliance with other legal requirements, including the sale of common property of a multi-apartment building as a separate object.
Point 16: A creditor who exercised control over the debtor’s actions and caused harm to the interests of other creditors by their actions may be held subsidiarily liable.
I would say that this position represents a development of previously expressed approaches. In my opinion, this is again a reminder to lower courts about the permissibility of holding liable individuals subsidiarily who have effectively driven the debtor to bankruptcy, and about the need to move away from a formal approach to identifying the guilty parties.
Point 17: If the grounds for subsidiary liability arose from the debtor’s activities prior to the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings, the claim for holding liable is not considered current.
Point 18: When filing an application for subsidiary liability against a controlling debtor undergoing bankruptcy proceedings, the insolvency trustee of the controlled entity must apply for the inclusion of such a claim in the register in the bankruptcy case of the controlling debtor within the period established by Article 142 of the Bankruptcy Law.
In my opinion, this clarification is of significant importance for legal practice, as it clearly establishes the deadline for the insolvency trustee to apply for the inclusion of the claim. I notice that lately, the Court’s clarifications show a trend towards establishing deadlines that begin from the moment of awareness of the factual circumstances, rather than from the date of a court decision. This, as I believe, helps to limit the indefinite extension of deadlines.
Insolvency trustee’s participation in bankruptcy proceedings
Point 19: Based on the assessment of the insolvency trustee’s actions, the court may reduce the amount of their remuneration, even in the absence of a prior court decision declaring these actions unlawful.
This clarification is very useful. In my opinion, it opens up the possibility for the court to deny remuneration to a dishonest trustee, even if there is no formal court ruling directly declaring their actions unlawful. I can cite an example from my practice where the trustee’s actions caused damage to creditors, and such a court approach would have been justified.
Point 20: Only losses that are a direct consequence of the insolvency trustee’s specific wrongful actions or omissions are recovered from the insolvency trustee.
Point 21: The statutes of limitations for claims seeking recovery of losses from an insolvency trustee and for claims challenging their actions or omissions generally begin to run concurrently.
Point 22: The insolvency trustee’s actions regarding the lease of pledged property are presumed lawful if the lease terms were agreed upon with the pledgeholder and there was no abuse in granting such consent.
Point 23: If the debtor lacks sufficient funds to finance bankruptcy proceedings, the insolvency trustee may recover the shortfall from either the applicant in the bankruptcy case or from the debtor’s founder or participant.
Procedural and other matters
Point 24: A bankruptcy case for an individual may be initiated upon the application of a creditor without a court decision confirming their claim, provided there is an agreement concluded between the creditor and the debtor acknowledging the debt after the occurrence of default.
Point 25: A settlement agreement in a bankruptcy case is approved by the court if there is a sufficient probability of its execution.
Point 26: A creditor who has not timely filed an application or motion within the framework of the debtor’s bankruptcy case is not entitled to subsequently demand a review of the bankruptcy proceedings’ outcome concerning the persons and property involved therein.
This review serves as a guide for lower courts and participants in bankruptcy proceedings, contributing to the uniform application of legislation.