Procedural problems of alienation of shares and shares of business entities

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-21
Author(s):  
Aleksey A. Maksurov
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Culture ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Business Entities ◽  
The Right ◽  
Corporate Legislation ◽  
Authorized Capital ◽  
A Share

The article deals with the practice of observing the pre-emptive rights of shareholders of non-public joint-stock companies and business company participants when alienating shares (stocks) of business companies, including third parties. We are talking about protecting the interests of participants (shareholders) and the company as well as persons alienating the shares. The material is of interest in the formation of a civilized and effective corporate culture. The law provides not only for the right to alienate shares in business companies and non-public joint-stock companies, but also for the forms (methods) of exercising such a right (power). These forms (methods) have an approximate list. Based on the concept of civil law dispositivity, the rightholder can use any method of shares (stocks) alienation that is not prohibited by law. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation1 mentions the ways of transferring shares only in relation to a limited liability company (Article 93). The norms of this Code do not contain any specifics in this regard, thus leaving the issue to special (corporate) legislation. However, corporate legislation does not fully regulate the entire mechanism for transferring a share in the authorized capital or shares to another person. The most common method of share alienation is a share purchase and sale agreement; other methods that are not prohibited by law are considered auxiliary methods. The paper deals with procedural issues involved in using methods of shares alienation in practice. 1 The Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part one) from 30.11.1994 № 51-FZ (as amended on 16.12.2019, Rev. from 12.05.2020) / / Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. 1994. No. 32. St. 3301.

scholarly journals An Object of Vindication: Problems of Law Enforcement

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 76-93
Author(s):  
A. A. Guseva
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Theory Of Law ◽  
Authorized Capital

The paper is devoted to examining objects of civil rights in order to establish whether it is possible to subject them to vindication. The paper analyzes such objects as things, “incorporeal things”, non-cash funds, uncertified securities, intellectual property, shares in the authorized capital of limited liability companies, digital rights, cryptocurrency, etc. The author determines the legal nature of the objects under consideration with due regard to the theory of law and legal stances of courts. As a consequence, the author substantiates the relativity of the possibility or impossibility of their vindication under Art. 301 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Also, the author examines the issues of existence of special mechanisms for protection of rights holders of uncertified securities and shares in the authorized capital of limited liability companies to find the interrelation between them and vindication. The paper provides the analysis of judicial practice on the issue of claiming civil law objects from someone else’s illegal possession. Conclusions are drawn as to which objects can be subject to vindication under Art. 301 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which objects can be claimed by analogy of the law and which objects cannot be subjected to vindication.

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 Legal status of the company's share in own authorized capital under the Law of Ukraine “On limited and additional liability companies”: problems of legal regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 11/1 (-) ◽  
pp. 31-36
Author(s):  
Volodymyr TSIUPRYK
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Company ◽  
Authorized Capital ◽  
A Share

Introduction. Nowadays, the issue of determining the legal status of the company's share in the own authorized capital of LLC and TDV has become quite acute, as evidenced by the adoption on July 28, 2021 by the Commercial Court of Cassation in Case № 904/1112/20, in which the Court established a new approach legal nature of such a phenomenon and expressed his own position on the understanding of the legislation concerning the legal status of the share of LLC and TDV in its own authorized capital. Given that a limited liability company is the most popular type of legal entity that is chosen to conduct business in Ukraine, the analysis of this issue is relevant. Some scientific value for the development of the transfer of the participant's share are the works of individual authors devoted to the study of the legal nature of the share in the authorized capital but the problems arising around the legal status of the company. in their own authorized capital in these works were only mentioned along with others, but did not receive a detailed separate study. The purpose of the paper is to analyze the normative regulation of the legal status of the company's share in the own authorized capital of LLCs and ALCs, identification of shortcomings in their legal regulation and implementation, as well as the search for ways to eliminate them. Results. One of the most relevant decisions concerning the subject of this article is the Judgment of the Commercial Court of Cassation in case № 904/1112/20 of July 28, 2021. The court in this case found that the votes attributable to the share belonging to the company itself are not taken into account when determining the results of voting at the general meeting of participants on any issues. However, Ukrainian legislation does not contain any direct norms that would prohibit the exercise of the right to manage a company in relation to itself on the basis of a share in its own authorized capital. That is why the company cannot be a participant in relation to itself, although they seem logical, but do not have sufficient regulatory support, and therefore do not allow to be firmly convinced of their compliance with the law. In view of this, it can be stated that there is a significant gap in the national legislation on this issue, which, in our opinion, the Court failed to “fill” with this decision in the case. Conclusion. In the Ukrainian legislation at the level of the Law of Ukraine “On Limited and Additional Liability Companies” Article 25 defines the possibility for a company to acquire a share in its own authorized capital. However, the regulation of the legal status of such a share cannot be called sufficient, due to which in practice there are certain problems in the implementation of the provisions of the legislation concerning the share of the company in its own authorized capital. The solution of these legal problems is necessary to ensure the highest quality and clarity of the law, as well as to form case law with common approaches to understanding a single rule.

scholarly journals The Legal Status of Subjects of Corporate Relationships: Doctrinal and Law Enforcement Aspects

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 3-7
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Cherkasova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Law And Order ◽  
Generic Term ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article reviews the legal status of subjects of corporate relationships, analyzes doctrinal and law enforcement aspects. The author analyzes the scientists’ standpoints, various models of interaction between the subjects of corporate relationships existing in foreign law and order, case law, arrives at conclusions about the correlation between the categories of the “right of participation”, “right of membership”, “right of management”. It is noted that the membership concept evolves out of participation by performing the function of a generic term. It is suggested to determine the “right of management” of a corporation as just one of the member’s activity areas along with other rights. The author recommends to ensure consistency of the provision of Article 2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Articles 65.2, 65.3 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation where the concept of the “right of participation” would act as a basic one and the “right of management” would be its constituent part.

scholarly journals Usufruct Law: Origins, Comparative Legal Analysis and Prospects of the Development in Russia

2021 ◽  
pp. 321-345
Author(s):  
L. V. Shchennikova ◽  
◽  
A. Yu. Migacheva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Agricultural Land ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Economic Effect ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

Introduction: the reform of modern civil legislation cannot be completed without the adoption of a package of amendments to the section of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation devoted to real rights. Moreover, the lack of a developed and consistent concept of real rights has a negative impact on the development of all related areas. Real rights are designed to solve strategic problems of state development, among which social issues are currently coming to the fore. In this regard, it is important to study individual real rights proposed for introduction into civil legislation in terms of their potential to promote not only the economic but also the social development of the country. This paper focuses on usufruct in the aspect of its historical identity, powerful functional message, and internationality. Purpose: the research aims to clarify the significance of real law[1] regulation in solving nationally significant problems. Based on the achievements of foreign doctrine and legislation, we attempt to show the prospects of the introduction of usufruct in the Russian system of real rights. Methods: general (philosophical), general scientific, special scientific (including special legal) methods of cognition: dialectical, logical, historical, sociological, comparative-legal and formal-legal. Results: we have studied civil legislation of thirty countries of the world. The study has shown that the introduction of usufruct can have a positive social and economic effect, but only provided that the legislator does not deviate from the historically established concept of usufruct embodied in foreign law. Conclusions:the Draft of Section II of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ‘Real Rights’ needs revision, with the initial social function of usufruct taken into consideration. It is necessary to work out a system of grounds for the emergence and termination of usufructuary rights, to introduce a mandatory notarial form of a contract for the establishment of usufruct, to provide for the possibility of establishing usufruct by virtue of law in relation to socially significant objects and on the basis of a court decision, to enshrine non-use of the right among the grounds for termination; to allow the establishment of usufruct in relation to citizens and legal entities, and not only non-profit organizations; to allow multiple usufructuaries; to describe in detail the rights and obligations of the owner and the usufructuary, including the duties of treating the property with care, and to indicate the possible limits of the disposal of the property by the usufructuary, including via transactions; to work out the rules for the exercise of the right of usufruct in relation to certain categories of objects, for example: property of minors, inheritance, agricultural land, forests, minerals, etc.

scholarly journals Reasons Why Inflicting Harm is not a Sufficient Indicator of Abuse of the Right

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 22-31
Author(s):  
S. V. Musarskiy
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Subjective Rights

One of the most difficult issues of civil law is the determination of the criteria for abuse of rights prohibited by Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Among numerous points of view on this issue, the following has become very widespread in judicial practice: an abuse of the right can be established based on the negative consequences that have occurred for third parties as a result of the exercise of the right. Since these consequences are evident, then the exercise of the right constituted an abuse. Substantial support for this approach is provided by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation opining that the rule of Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is aimed at implementing the principle enshrined in Part 3 of Art. 17 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Having studied the origins of this point of view and its legal foundations, the author noted a number of inherent shortcomings. In particular, this point of view does not distinguish between inflicting unacceptable harm and admissible actions causing harm to another person; it does not take into account the competition of legal norms; it does not take into account that causing harm prohibited by law is an offense and, therefore, it is not an act of exercising subjective rights. These and other shortcomings of the concept of causing harm, noted by the author of the paper, lead to the conclusion that the feature of “causing harm” in itself is insufficient to qualify the act as an act of abuse of the right and the application of Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. In addition to the indicated feature, which is a prerequisite for the application of Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the court must establish another (key) factor, namely: the fact that, in its opinion, allows to distinguish between legal abuse and other lawful and unlawful phenomena.

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 Expert Examination of the Use of a Dependent Invention and a Dependent Utility Model Under the Law of the Russian Federation

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3.14) ◽  
pp. 340
Author(s):  
Vladimir Evgenievich Kitaiskiy ◽  
Evgeniy Nikolaevich Petrov ◽  
Vera Vladimirovna Shvedova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Utility Model ◽  
Patent Owner ◽  
Utility Models ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

The article deals with such objects of patent law as inventions and utility models, the use of which by patent holders in some cases is limited by the rights of other patent owners in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as amended on March 12, 2014. Such inventions and utility models are called dependent. In fact, these are improvements to other inventions and utility models, to which the exclusive right applies. The patent owner of such a dependent object of patent law may legitimately use his invention or his utility model only upon obtaining the right to use another (main) object of patent law or at its alienation from the legal owner. For this, it is necessary to reveal the dependence of one's object of patent law on another (main) object. The article shows how it is possible to identify such dependence under the existing patent legislation of the Russian Federation.  

SECURITIES AS AN OBJECT OF CIVIL LEGAL RELATIONS AND THEIR CIVIL PROTECTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 140-144
Author(s):  
L. V. YAKOVLEVA ◽  
◽  
Yu. S. ZHARIKOV ◽  
Z. A. IVANOVA ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Civil Protection ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

This article discusses possible options for protecting the right of holders of uncertified securities to use them in their interests from the perspective of current civil law. In particular, it considers the possibility of applying a violated claim to the violated right of ownership of these securities. Analyzing the latest changes in the first part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and industry legislation, the authors come to the conclusion about the possibility of such a lawsuit, but against BCB, which has the attributes of a thing.

On the issue of the right to provide legal assistance

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Лев Бардин ◽  
Lev Bardin
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Good Alternative ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
The Right

The law establishes that representatives in the courts can be both lawyers and other persons providing legal assistance, as well as legal representatives. The Constitutional Court in its Resolution No. 15-P of 16.07.2004 indicated that representatives of legal entities in arbitration proceedings can be any person. But in accordance with Item II (A) (a) of the List of Specific Obligations of the Russian Federation for Services Included in Annex I to the Protocol of 16 December 2011 "On the Accession of the Russian Federation to the Marrakesh Agreement on the establishing of the WTO", only those who received the status Lawyer in accordance with Russian law, has the right to represent in criminal courts and Russian arbitration courts, as well as act as a representative of organizations in civil and administrative proceedings and proceedings on cases of administrative violations. Appropriate legislative changes are needed. The law states that the use of the terms "advocacy", "lawyer", "lawyer's chamber", "lawyer’s entity" in the names of organizations is allowed only by lawyers. Every year, Russia's tax inspections register dozens of organizations set up by non-layers, illegally including the above terms in their names. The law should provide not only prohibitions, but also sanctions for violation of these prohibitions. Collegiums of advocates often include the phrase "partners" in their names. But lawyers - members of the board are not partners and do not sign partnership agreements. Partners can not be among the governing bodies of the collegium . The application by collegiums of lawyers of the rules provided for non-commercial partnerships by the Federal Law "On Non-Profit Organizations" in the part of partners is illegal. Only lawyers can establish a lawyer’s bureau and conclude a partnership agreement. But in practice in lawyer’s bureau, persons who do not have the status of a lawyer become partners. In other countries, in associating lawyers limited liability partnerships, along with partners, there are "associates". The introduction of such "associates" in our lawyer’s bureau will be a good alternative to attempts to include commercial organizations in the composition of lawyer entities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document