Abstract

The article discusses the state of certain imbalance in the insolvency law system. On one hand, there is a dogma of the priority of restructuring over bankruptcy in the case of a debtor’s insolvency. On the other, the legal scheme addressed to a debtor’s representative in fact demotivates from choosing the path of restructuring. In certain situations, following the path of restructuring that is optimal for a debtor may carry the risk of personal liability for a debtor’s representative. The author of the article puts forth a thesis that certain circumstances that exclude liability of a debtor’s representative for not filing a petition in bankruptcy are defectively constructed. A de lege ferenda postulate for changing tem has been put forward.