The article covers the subject of forum shopping and regulatory com- petition in cross-border insolvencies and restructurings due to the im- pact of Directive of the European Parliament on preventive restructu- ring frameworks as well as the role of coronavirus pandemic. Looking at the experience of the European Union in handling bankruptcy and pre-bankruptcy forum shopping abuses, authors analyse the EU mo- del of preventive restructuring and its regulatory competition potential. They assess possible impact of COVID-19 on regulatory competition and forum shopping during insolvency and restructuring proceedings. The article draws parallels with Russian judicial practice

The article explores “bankruptcy tourism” which is the

individual debtor’s choice of the most preferred country

for his bankruptcy. The author highlights causes of the

phenomenon, principles of its evolution and provisions for

its occurrence. She notes that regulation of international

jurisdiction of insolvency cases and mechanisms of foreign

bankruptcy recognition significantly affects the growth of

“bankruptcy tourism” which is confirmed by the experience

of the European Union. The article provides a research of

prospects for migration of the Russian debtors seeking for

“bankruptcy tourism” and evaluates the corresponding legal

consequences for the Russian jurisdiction. The analysis

of foreign approaches to the issue of recognition of postbankruptcy

discharges for individuals opens up the possibility

to evaluate the prospects for their use in Russia. The author

points out that despite it is desirable to acknowledge debt

reliefs issued in a foreign jurisdiction, the countries reserve

their right to block their cross-border effect in certain cases.

In this article, the problem of Big Data is examined from the standpoint of civil law in the context of the question whether the existing mechanisms are sufficient for the purposes of civil regulation of Big Data or whether a qualitative review of the system of objects of civil objects, including intellectual property, is required. In the frame of civil discussion, it is proposed to consider Big Data in close connection with new knowledge formation, including on the basis of its analysis, for the purposes of using it in one’s own activity or selling it on the market and, as a result, to qualify Big Data as a special service based on Big Data technology. An emphasis on the “service” focuses attention on the “dynamics” of relations and the subject of regulations. Equally, the inclusion in the concept of indications of “information and analytical” nature and “Big Data technology” highlights the relevant specific features. Commenting on the characteristics of various objects of civil rights, the authors note the impossibility of extending the existing legal regimes to Big Data and suggest the expediency of recognising Big Data as a new non-traditional object of intellectual property. The proposed approach, according to the authors, allows to take into account not only the differentiation of objects of intellectual property in the broadest sense, but also their inherent unity, which is manifested in the granting of special — exclusive — rights to intangible objects being the results of the activity in question.

In this article author analyses the question, who has to prove good faith acquisition of someone else’s property when a vindication claim is submitted. Does the good faith acquisition has to the objection of the defendant or does proving to the contrary constitute an element of proof for the property rights of the plaintiff? The article is based on the analysis of judicial and legislative changes of the Russian law. The author maintains that Article 223(2) of the Russian Civil Code makes a bona fide purchaser for value the new owner — by virtue of the law — of a thing which has been alienated from the owner at his own will, so the plaintiff seeking vindication has to prove the right of ownership; therefore, it is the plaintiff who must prove the absence of the good faith acquisition.. The author explains how to obtain evidence of gratuitous acquisition and/or bad faith on the part of the defendant, and admits that in disputes over the rights to real estate one can refer to a registration case as a source of evidence, while titles to movable property are registered in no single source so proving the plaintiff’s right to it is extremely difficult.

The paper examines Russian court practice in terms of sham com- panies, straw persons and shadow directors. The author comes to a conclusion that Russian courts, especially criminal ones, active- ly lift the corporate veil, imposing liability upon the shadow direc- tors. This approach has a solid economic foundation. The value of civil property regulatory relations lies in the fact that they organise property turnover, enabling it to be efficiently distributed, and nar- row the uncertainty of the future. Faking and sham relations do not perform these functions. On the contrary, since information is a limited resource, not providing the true information about a le- gal entity's activities and its bodies increases transaction costs. On the basis of the research results, the author concludes that target criterion should be decisive to recognise a company as sham, and will criterion should be decisive to recognise a person as dummy or shadow director. It is also necessary to clarify and systematise the used terms based on supremacy of civil law.