Statutory list
Article 19 identifies group companies, affiliates, managers and specified relatives.
Factual connection
The court may examine real influence and aligned interests beyond formal registry entries.
No automatic fault
Kinship or affiliation does not replace proof of the elements of a particular claim.
Who may be an interested person
| Connection | Example | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Group or affiliation | Parent and subsidiary, common control | Ownership, voting, contracts and actual influence |
| Debtor management | Director, board member, executive body or chief accountant | Current role and the one-year pre-case period |
| Individual debtor | Spouse and relatives listed by Article 19 | Civil-status evidence and the substance of the transaction |
| Administrator or creditor connection | Group or family link where the law makes it relevant | Independence, conflict and proper disclosure |
Why the status matters
Transaction challenges
Interest may support statutory presumptions, but the court still establishes every element of Article 61.2 or 61.3.
Proof of claims
An intra-group loan is tested for reality, funding source, economic reason and crisis conduct.
Creditor voting
Good faith and conflict may be examined, while voting rights still follow the nature and admission of the claim.
Liability
Interest is not control and creates no secondary liability without the required legal facts.
Evidence and disclosure plan
Map the persons
List shareholders, directors, beneficiaries, relatives and changes during the relevant period.
Collect formal records
Obtain registry extracts, minutes, powers of attorney, accounts and admissible civil-status evidence.
Test factual links
Compare addresses, staff, payments, communications, projects and funding sources.
Classify the relationship
Analyse Article 19, factual affiliation and control under Article 61.10 separately.
Connect it to the issue
Explain whether the link proves knowledge, unusual terms, funding reality or conflict.
Avoid labels without proof
Identify the exact statute, period and legally material fact for each allegation.
Transactions and creditor claims
Article 61.2(2) allows a transaction intended to harm creditors to be challenged where all statutory conditions are met. Dealings with an interested person may participate in presumptions concerning purpose and knowledge, but the outcome depends on timing, insolvency, harm and evidence.
Article 61.3 concerns preference: it asks whether one creditor received more than it would under statutory priority and, in the relevant period, whether it knew of distress. Affiliation therefore does not replace correct legal classification.
Frequently asked questions
Is every relative interested?
No. Article 19 contains a defined family list for an individual debtor. Other consequences require their own factual analysis.
Is an affiliated claim automatically rejected?
No. The court tests the underlying debt, funding source, economic purpose and crisis conduct.
Is interest the same as control?
No. Control requires the ability to determine the debtor’s conduct.
Is every deal with a director invalid?
No. A transaction is challenged only when the elements of a statutory ground are proven.
Should connections be disclosed voluntarily?
Material connections and supporting records should be disclosed early; concealment damages credibility and good-faith assessment.
Primary legal sources
- Article 19 of Insolvency Law No. 127-FZ
- Article 61.2 on suspicious transactions
- Article 61.3 on preference
- Russian Supreme Court review of affiliated claims
- Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 41 of 23 December 2025
Related guides
Claim subordination · Secondary liability · Transaction challenges
Need to classify a relationship, transaction or claim in a Russian insolvency case?
Initial consultation