The introduction of Federal Law No. 107-FZ, which took effect on May 29, marks a significant shift in Russia’s bankruptcy framework by amending the Bankruptcy Code and Article 223 of the Arbitration Procedural Code. The core aim of these amendments is to introduce new procedures for handling separate disputes within bankruptcy cases, thereby reducing the caseload pressure on arbitration courts across the country. This reform is expected to streamline the adjudication process, enabling courts to manage individual disputes with greater efficiency and predictability while maintaining due process for all stakeholders involved.
During discussions at the St. Petersburg International Law Forum, the head of the Compulsory Collection and Bankruptcy Department at a leading financial institution highlighted the practical implications of these changes. The remarks were delivered in the context of the session titled “Bankruptcy 2024: New Trends,” where participants noted that the complexity and frequency of bankruptcy procedures have intensified over the past decade. The speaker emphasized that the landscape of insolvency proceedings has evolved considerably, with a noticeable rise in the number of disputes reviewed by arbitration courts year after year.
Within this evolving landscape, the plenary discussions and policy assessments pointed to a consistent pattern: legislation governing bankruptcy has undergone frequent revisions. In fact, the reform observed by experts shows that the bankruptcy framework experienced substantial updates — approximately ninety changes in the last ten years alone. These ongoing amendments have contributed to an overloaded court system, where the volume of cases competes with the speed and quality of rulings. The new rules in Law No. 107-FZ are presented as a targeted response to this pressure, designed to clarify how separate disputes are evaluated and decided within the bankruptcy process.
Specifically, the new rules authorize creditors to file their claims with the court, after which the court assesses those claims without necessarily calling all parties to participate in the initial evaluation, delivering a decision that reflects only the valid portions. If any creditor challenges the result, the court will undertake a direct, in-person examination of the contested claims. In such instances, it remains possible to appeal the decision, and appellants may request, or the court may provide, the justification portion of the ruling as part of the appeals process before a final determination is issued. This structured approach is intended to improve transparency and efficiency in handling contested claims while preserving avenues for challenge where warranted.
Among other provisions, the reform grants courts greater latitude to manage procedures. They may request documents or take procedural steps without summoning all parties, which can expedite resolution and reduce unnecessary appearances. The ongoing evaluation of these changes suggests that they will help realign resource use with the actual needs of bankruptcy cases, ensuring that time and attention are focused where disputes truly hinge on legal interpretations or evidentiary issues.
Advocates of the reform point to concrete outcomes observed in practice. For instance, it is noted that a large share of decisions regarding the inclusion of receivables did not provoke appeals, yet traditional hearings required attendance by the creditors, insolvency practitioners, or their representatives. Such proceedings consumed substantial resources without contributing to meaningful changes in outcomes. The new framework is expected to curb these inefficiencies by narrowing the scope of initial disputes to those that genuinely affect the legal and factual determination of a case, while delegating routine evaluations to the court’s streamlined procedures.
In addition, a new document establishing a state duty for consideration of separate disputes within bankruptcy cases has been introduced. This measure, promulgated by state authorities, aims to relieve the courts from non-essential docket activity by ensuring that fees are aligned with the actual processing burden. The Supreme Court’s stated objective is to reduce the incidence of unfounded complaints by introducing a financial incentive to pursue legitimate, well-supported challenges. This fiscal accountability is seen as a practical step toward more disciplined, merit-based use of judicial resources.
Altogether, the reform is viewed as a means to ease the workload on the judiciary, allowing judges to devote more attention to disputes that involve substantive questions of law. By focusing resources on issues that truly require rigorous legal analysis, the judiciary can issue more careful and well-founded decisions. This shift is anticipated to translate into faster, clearer outcomes for creditors, debtors, and other participants in bankruptcy proceedings, while preserving essential protections and due process for all parties involved.