Codification of Rules of Corporate Legislation on Liability of Managers for Damages Caused to Legal Entities

10.12737/1812 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-40
Author(s):  
Олег Гутников ◽  
Olyeg Gutnikov
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Corporate Law ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Plenary Meeting ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Corporate Legislation ◽  
Legal Entities

The article covers various matters relating to liability of managers for damages. It contains analysis of particular corporate law rules in question with specific focus on the decree of Plenary meeting of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of July 30, 2013 N 62 “Certain Matters Connected with Compensation of Damages by Members of Management in Legal Entities”. The author comes to the conclusion that the rules of liability should be uniform irrespectively of the particular type of legal entity. There are also justifying arguments in support of introduction and codification of general provisions regarding liability of managers into the Russian Civil Code.

Scientific Commentary on the Review of Judicial Practice on Some Issues of the Application of Legislation on Business Entities

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 27-32
Author(s):  
V. K. Andreev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Business Entities ◽  
Law Making

The article discusses the forms of clarification on matters of judicial practice by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Presidium of the Supreme Court, as well as in the Review of judicial practice on some issues of the application of legislation on business companies dated December 25, 2019. Clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on issues of judicial practice are characterized as the positions of the courts identified in the course of studying and summarizing the judicial practice of the corresponding category of cases, which are acts of individual regulation of public relations. Focusing on Art. 6 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Section 6, Art. 12 of the APC RF shows the validity of dividing wrong into two types of wrong: the «moderate» type of «judicial law-making and the position of the court» and the «radical» type of «judicial law-making», when the court develops the rule of law, which contradicts the constitutional principle of separation of powers. When resolving corporate disputes, it is necessary to investigate whether the charter of a non-public company does not contain the rights and obligations of its participants, which they themselves created by making a unanimous decision and including them in the charter of the company (paragraph 3 of Art. 66.3 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 3 of Art. 14 of the Law about LLC).

scholarly journals Responsibility of Individuals Managing a Legal Entity

Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 30-38
Author(s):  
Yu. A. Meteleva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Russian Federation

The problem of liability of persons managing a legal entity was raised in Russian civil law after the adoption of legislation on joint-stock companies. At the beginning, it was more theoretical in nature, since the civil legislation did not contain any mechanisms for the implementation of such liability. To date, due to the reform of the Civil Code and changing approaches in jurisprudence, disputes concerning property liability of directors have formed a considerable category of cases. The paper analyzes the elements of such civil wrongs as damage caused to a legal entity by persons who are members of the managerial boards and are able to exercise a significant impact on such boards. All elements of the civil wrong under consideration are being analyzed: the act, the consequences (damage), the causal link between the act and the consequences, and the fault of the wrong-doer. The paper also elucidates the participants involved in such disputes. Exploring specific court cases, the author shows which acts of directors are recognized by the courts as illegal, what restrictions are expressed in the legal standings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation to qualify as illegal different acts of directors and other persons. In the vast majority of cases of this category, persons exercising the functions of the sole executive body are prosecuted. Sometimes they are also the participants at the same time. The scope of persons covered by the term “determining the acts of a legal entity” is not defined in the law, which also hampers judicial practice. Judicial proceedings bringing such persons to justice are exceptional. Therefore, the author proposes to define in the Civil Code all persons who can commit an act and thereby cause damage to a legal entity. In addition, it is proposed to establish criteria of unreasonableness and dishonesty of actions of directors and other persons.

scholarly journals On the Issue of the Concept of Bankruptcy

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 21-34
Author(s):  
E. D. Suvorov
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Economic Condition ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Modern Economy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The paper justifies the statement concerning the multiplicity of the concept of “bankruptcy”, and interpretes the relevant meanings. The author states that bankruptcy can be considered as: 1. an economic condition, failure to satisfy creditors’ claims, including the failure recognized by the court; 2. a procedure; 3. an objection on behalf of the debtor; 4. a basis for a special settlement regime with creditors and such a special settlement regime itself; 5. a type of enforcement proceedings; 6. a way of authorizing insolvency; 7. a model of administration; 8. a basis and order of liquidation of a legal entity. A preliminary agreement concerning the meaning of the term “bankruptcy” is necessary at all stages of the life of law: when a rule of law is created, applied and when it is being subjected to doctrinal debates aimed at identifying its meaning. Particular attention in the paper is paid to the concepts of insolvency and property insufficiency. The author argues that it is necessary to distinguish the signs of bankruptcy from insolvency, and the former from the grounds for initiating proceedings. In author’s opinion, the introduction of the category of insufficiency of property in 2009 as grounds for mandatory filing for bankruptcy by the debtor’s principal was a step backwards and does not meet the needs of the modern economy. To remedy the situation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation introduced the category of objective bankruptcy that is also ambiguous. The paper also focuses on bankruptcy as a special settlement regime with creditors based on the application of the principle of equality of creditors (pari passu). It is stated that this principle is the reason for the emergence, along with the executive proceedings, of a special regime, namely: bankruptcy.

scholarly journals Conclusion of a Settlement Agreement within the Framework of the Derivative Claim Proceedings

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 38-55
Author(s):  
V. O. Vatamanyuk
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Interested Party ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Peaceful Settlement ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Settlement Agreement ◽  
The Russian Federation

The paper discusses the procedural features of concluding a settlement in the claim involving a  corporation-participant for compensation of losses caused by the bodies of a legal entity, and aimed at recognizing  as invalid a transaction made by a corporation and applying the consequences of its invalidity on appropriate  corporate grounds. The author critically evaluates the procedural order applied to the peaceful settlement of a  dispute in an indirect claim, provided for under paragraph 32 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme  Court of the Russian Federation of 23 June 2015 No. 25, in terms of the possibility of an independent conclusion  of a settlement by a corporation-participant. The author justifies the necessity of obtaining the consent of the  corporation for the legal entity participant to conclude a settlement. Particular attention is paid to considering the  specifics of concluding a settlement in the event that other members of the corporation join an indirect claim. The  paper demonstrates the procedural features of concluding an amicable settlement when considering an indirect  claim according to the rules of the class proceedings. To conclude the study, the author dwells on the issue of the  need for corporate approval of a settlement containing signs of a major transaction and (or) an interested party  transaction concluded within the framework of an indirect claim.  

scholarly journals Assignment of a Claim Under an Obligation in Which the Identity of the Obligee Is Essential for the Obligor

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-464
Author(s):  
A. A. Martsun
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Essential Value ◽  
A Value ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation adopted a resolution of December 21, 2017 No. 54 “On some issues of application of the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the change of persons in an obligation on the basis of a transaction", which sets out important clarifications regarding the application standards contained in this chapter. At the same time, not all issues related to the assignment of the claim were resolved by the above resolution. One of these issues is the definition of the term “essential value of the identity of the creditor” or approximate criteria for such a value in the context of the need to obtain the latter’s consent to the assignment of rights. The presence of this problem is rightly indicated in the scientific literature [3, p. 549–655, 688–713]. The Author examines the Model Rules of European Private Law and the UNIDROIT principles in order to find a solution to the problem. Attention is drawn to the problem of determining the essential value of the creditor for the debtor in the case of assignment of the right of claim, as well as to the consequences of making the assignment without the consent of the debtor under an obligation in which the identity of the creditor was essential.In the Author's opinion, the identity of the creditor is recognized as essential for the debtor when the connection between the debtor and the creditor arose as a result of the conclusion of a transaction that has a personallyconfidential nature, or if the connection arose during the conclusion of other transactions in the case when the connection was broken during the execution assignment of rights entails or may entail a significant deprivation for the debtor of what he had the right to count on when concluding a transaction with the creditor.In addition, situations are considered that are an exception to the presumption of the absence of a significant value of the creditor's personality for the assignment of claims for monetary obligations. The author also points out that the consequence of the transaction on the assignment of rights without the consent of the debtor in the context of paragraph 2 of Art. 388 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is the nullity of the transaction on the basis of paragraph 2 of Art. 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals IMPOSITION OF SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY ON HEIRS OF A PARTY CONTROLLING THE DEBTOR

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 42-45
Author(s):  
Andrey D. Parkhomenko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Bankruptcy Procedure ◽  
The Russian Federation

Inheritance relationships have always been a challenging private law sphere. The problems concerning inheritance of debts have lately added to the discrepancies related to the regulation of these relationships. Such situation is caused by the introduction of some novelties in Russian laws and the adoption of key judicial acts by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and other judicial authorities. One of such novelties is inheritance of a debt arising out of subsidiary liability of parties controlling the debtor in the course of a bankruptcy procedure. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has actually broadened the range of subjects that may be brought to subsidiary liability. The court has established that upon acceptance of property by heirs of the parties controlling a debtor, they also inherit the testator's debt to the creditors of the bankrupt legal entity under the testator's control (by virtue of the interpretation of the legal nature of subsidiary liability by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation). It causes a number of questions concerning right protection means, violation of creditors' rights by minors, limits of acknowledgment of a citizen as a party controlling a debtor, etc. One of the key actions within the framework of inheritance relationships in the notarial practice is not only determination of the range of heirs, but also identification of the testator's property and assurance of its safety. The mentioned position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation establishes the amount of subsidiary liability as an estate part (broadly speaking, property), which may raise a number of problems in notarial activities.

scholarly journals PROBLEMS OF QUALIFICATION OF CLAIMS OF CREDITORS AFFILIATED WITH THE DEBTOR IN BANKRUPTCY CASES

2020 ◽  
pp. 26-30
Author(s):  
Y.V. Holodenko ◽  
D.M. Nazemcev
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Positive Development ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Debt Obligation

Along with the positive development of the institution of bankruptcy in Russia, there are mixed problemsin judicial practice. One such problem is the fate of the contractual claims of the controlling persons of theorganization and other affiliated creditors in the bankruptcy of the legal entity. The law does not explicitlyprohibit the financing of a corporation, through civil designs. However, problems regarding the qualificationof such financing methods arise when a society falls into bankruptcy proceedings. In this part, the courtsare faced with questions about the possibility of reclassifying the debt obligation into a relationship forthe precapitalization of society and recognizing the debt model of financing the requirement “arising fromparticipation.” This article is devoted to problems of qualification of claims of “corporate” creditors inbankruptcy cases. Various approaches of the Judicial Board on Economic Disputes of the Supreme Courtof the Russian Federation to loans issued by participants of economic companies are studied. The need toderogate from the position taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is justified in order toprotect the rights of bona fide participants of economic companies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document