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

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.

Download Full-text

On the Issue of the Concept of Bankruptcy

Lex Russica ◽

10.17803/1729-5920.2020.168.11.021-034 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

Law of succession ◽

10.18572/2072-4179-2021-1-42-45 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

Russian-Asian Legal Journal ◽

10.14258/ralj(2019)4.6 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Russian Law ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Criminal law characteristics of unlawful acts in a bankruptcy of an individual who does not have the status of an entrepreneur

Право и политика ◽

10.7256/2454-0706.2020.9.33905 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 65-80

Author(s):

Artem Nikolaevich Ryzhov

Keyword(s):

Public Relations ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Russian Federation ◽

Case Law ◽

Criminal Code ◽

Legal Entity ◽

Original Definition ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Status ◽

The Russian Federation

  The object of this research is public relations established within the framework of commission of unlawful actions in case of bankruptcy of a citizen (the Article 195 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The subject of this research is the norms set by the Article 195 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Chapter X of Bankruptcy Act, case law, resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on bankruptcy of the citizens, scientific works on the topic. The goal of this article consists in formulation of the scientifically substantiated recommendations for improving criminal legislation provisions that establish responsibility for committing unlawful actions in case of bankruptcy of a citizen, as well as their practical implementation. The scientific novelty consists in differentiation of the unlawful actions in case of bankruptcy of a legal entity, individual entrepreneur, and a citizen who does not have the status of an individual entrepreneur, based on the fact that these actions impinge on various public relations. Unlawful actions in case of bankruptcy of a citizen are viewed as separate offence. An original definition of the direct object of unlawful actions in case of bankruptcy of a citizen is provided. In accordance with bankruptcy law and acts of its interpretation the author determines substantial differences between the content of constituent elements of the object, actions and circumstances of unlawful actions in case of bankruptcy of a citizen established by the Parts 1 and 3 of the Article 195 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the wrongful actions in case of bankruptcy of the legal entity. Specific recommendations are formulated on introducing amendments to the Part 2 of the Article 195 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Leaning on the analysis of statistical data and case law, the author concludes on the need for adopting a resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on criminal bankruptcies, the draft of which may take into account the results obtained in this research.  

Download Full-text