Round bailing individuals widening. As found “Kommersant”, the courts protect those debtors, bankruptcy cases which were filed prior to the freeze, and even before the announcement of the pandemic. In some cases, creditors had six months to wait for the application, only to find that the debtor is bankrupt not succeed. The law directly such situations do not adjust. Lawyers support the idea of helping the victims, but warn about the possibility of abuse by debtors.A moratorium on bankruptcy, introduced in Russia from April 6 to six months, continues to put new challenges before the courts. According to article 9.1 of the bankruptcy law, creditors cannot file for bankruptcy of debtors (from the list of affected industries, the backbone or strategic enterprises) in the period of the moratorium. In addition, the law provides that if the creditor filed an application on recognizing the debtor bankrupt to the moratorium, but it has not been made to the court, the statement returned to the lender.However, what to do if the application is accepted, the bankruptcy case is filed, but none of the procedures have not yet introduced, the law is not explained. The result of the arbitration courts protect it from bankruptcy, citing the moratorium and those of debtors, whom the creditors began bankrupt long before the pandemic and government measures to mitigate its impact.Salvation etoposide have already initiated bankruptcy proceedings, the courts refused to impose on the debtor a particular procedure: leave the creditor’s application without consideration, to suspend or terminate the proceedings.Thus, on 22 June the arbitration court of Astrakhan region has left without consideration the statement of the tax service about a recognition the bankrupt entrepreneur Oleg Polyansky. The statement itself was filed and a bankruptcy case initiated on 23 December 2019. Monitoring procedure the court did not manage to enter as the meeting has been repeatedly postponed, including on motions by the debtor and because of limitations in connection with the pandemic. At the hearing in June, SP said the moratorium on bankruptcy, citing the fact that its main economic activity is “automotive parts, accessories, and tire stores” covered by the moratorium. The tax authorities insisted that the bankrupt debtor can, after the commencement of insolvency proceedings opened before the moratorium.The court cited the rule of article 9.1 of the law, which States that the notification of the creditor of the intention to bankrupt the debtor since the beginning of the moratorium is ineffective and does not give him the right to apply to court for initiation of bankruptcy (although in this case the application is submitted before the entry into force of the moratorium). Separately, the court referred to the clause��ora practice of the Supreme court of the Russian Federation No. 1 dated April 21, explaining that the circumstances and the time when the debt is irrelevant for the application of the moratorium: “Thus, the authorized body has no right to submit to the arbitration court statement declaring the debtor bankrupt during the term of the moratorium”. A similar fate befell the statement of Agency on insurance of contributions (bankruptcy Trustee “M2M private Bank”), demanding to bankrupt the company “Katerina Park”. On March 17 it was accepted for production, but the hearing was appointed on 28 may and then postponed to 4 June. The Moscow arbitration court, referring to the fact that the debtor falls under the moratorium on the main OKVED (“the activity”), in connection with the “failure to comply with pre-trial order” left the creditor’s application without consideration.In a similar way, the arbitration court of Irkutsk region did not allow the creditor to Yuri Melnikov bankrupt entrepreneur Alexander Reutov. The bankruptcy case was filed on March 18, but the hearing was postponed due to restrictive measures in connection with the pandemic. When, finally, the meeting took place, the court found that the debtor falls under the moratorium on core business (“retail trade of lighting appliances in specialised stores”), listed on the website FTS. Thus, said the court, the creditor “has no right to submit to the arbitration court statement declaring the debtor bankrupt during the term of the moratorium” (although a statement filed by Mr Melnikov in February). The court then referred to the failure to comply with pre-trial settlement of the dispute and finally on 3 June left the creditor’s application without consideration.With the motivation of the pretrial order, the Moscow arbitration court on may 27, has not become bankrupt and OOO “Ilim” (included in moratory list). The statement of JSC “national food Corporation”, adopted by the court on March 26 upheld the consideration of more unexpected wording. Pre-trial order, the court held, is “a moratorium on the initiation of a bankruptcy case,” “which in the present case the creditor is not complied with”.With almost the same reasoning of the Metropolitan court of arbitration on June 4 dismissed the case of bankruptcy of CJSC “krts inflotel ‘” filed on 13 December 2019 at the request of the Department of city property of Moscow. The court referred to the fact that the debtor is in the list of victims, and “the moratorium… is a different pre-trial order, which in the present case the creditor is not complied with”.So, the statement of IP Elena Kuragina bankruptcy of EFA, OOO (podmoratornyh NACE — “the activities”) accepted for review 21 Feb. But the meeting at the bankruptcy proceedings was postponed, could not find the Manager, then there was a pandemic and the courts went to the quarantine. In definition of court from 15 June does not mention that the debtor disputed the debt and referred to the moratorium, all of the arguments the court put itself: the debtor moratory included in the list, return the application to the lender is impossible, as it is already accepted to manufacture, the case shall be terminated “for other reasons”.Very occasionally the courts have tried to explain the logic of saving the debtor the objective pursued by the moratorium. “Kommersant” has found only one such case. JSC “Mosenergosbyt” in October 2019 filed for bankruptcy FGUP “Electromechanical factory Zvezda”, November 19 the arbitration court of Moscow made it to production. Meeting on the introduction of the procedure was postponed several times because of the involvement of the Federal property Agency, state Corporation “rostec”, the bailiffs, and then the pandemic and care of vessels in quarantine. In the end, 10 yunasz “based on goals and objectives” of the amendments to the law on bankruptcy and regulations of the government, suspended the proceedings until the expiry of the moratorium, noting that the debtor gets under his.There are very strange cases. So, MUP “water canal” MO “the City of Birobidzhan” decided to bankrupt the company “the Management company “the Monarch””, 17 December the arbitration court of the Jewish Autonomous region has adopted this statement and filed a bankruptcy case. Meeting on introduction of the procedure was postponed due to Manager searches, and promises to repay the debt. But on may 13 the court “for proper consideration of the case” unexpectedly decided to suspend production until the end of the moratorium stipulated by the government. Service FNS does not confirm the distribution of the moratorium for the company.The desire of the courts to help the debtors in the period of the pandemic and crisis evidenced by the fact that there closely related to the reference debtor on the application of the moratorium and postpone the meeting on the introduction of bankruptcy procedures. For example, so it was a pending case, OOO “Maksglobal” and SP Natalia kranovoj by the statements of the FNS, filed in 2019.”Not to harm business””the Law is silent on how to resolve the issue adopted prior to the moratorium to the production of the bankruptcy cases, so courts are free to determine how to be”,— said the lawyer practices restructuring and insolvency, Art de Lex Julia Shilova. Apparently, the courts took into account the specified in the review sun, 21 APR vector “is not to harm business,” says partner PKF MEF Alexander Ovesnov. The Chairman of the “Bankruptcy club” Oleg Zaitsev, notes that in the first version of the amendments on moratorium right has been suggested in such cases to suspend the proceedings in the bankruptcy case, but in the final version of the document this thesis is not entered. Yulia Shilova admits that missed the editorial standards could play a role in the interpretation by courts of rules of the moratorium. While the gopoia Shilov notes that launched on the Russian government website stopmanager.Russia now refers to the suspension of proceedings adopted by the courts the cases have not yet started the bankruptcy procedure.At the same time, lawyers do not see the need to amend the law, given that the moratorium will be valid for only three months. “Enough for the explanation of the sun in the form of review of court practice”,— says Yulia Shilova.”The idea of the moratorium is aimed at preventing shaft failures in the current economic situation and in the midst of a pandemic, the debtor may have no chance to recover its position, which does not say anything about its insolvency as a whole. Therefore, the dismissal without prejudice, suspension, or termination procedures in any case solves the task of preventing simultaneous mass bankruptcy of the enterprises of the most affected areas,” explains Ms. Shilova.”Given that the moratorium was introduced not immediately, as soon as the pandemic started, to give a decisive one, only the date of initiation of the bankruptcy case would obviously be wrong”, says Oleg Zaitsev. In his opinion, the application of the debtor the moratorium should affect primarily the reasons because of which a person became insolvent: “the Purpose of the moratorium is to protect against judicial procedure of bankruptcy the businesses that can’t pay due to the pandemic.”However, Alexander Ovesnov fears that the indiscriminate dismissal of all debtors, which failed to enter a bankruptcy procedure, can lead to abuse, in particular, to the fact that the moratorium can hide behind unscrupulous individuals. He believes that at the stage of acceptance of the application of the creditor the court can assess the causes and time of occurrence of signs of insolvency and to establish whether the debtor is the criteria of the moratorium: “If the debtor’s bankruptcy resulted in not pandemic and epidemiological situation in the country and the world, then the lock of the bankruptcy procedure must be interpreted as a violation of the rights of creditors.” For such debtors, emphasizes the lawyer, the moratorium should not be extended.The arbitral panel