Ðóñ Eng Cn Translate this page:
Nota Bene. Books, journals, publishing technologies.
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate ☒
Library
 Your profile
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Back to contents

Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law
Reference:

Golskiy D.G., Fadeev M.A. Transfer of the Right of an Indirect Action in the Russian Federation – New Solutions, Old Problems

Abstract: This article deals with the problem of transition of the shares and right to claim for damages to the new shareholder, caused to the Company by its head, as well as the right to challenge transactions entered into by the company. The authors analyzed the modern Russian legislation and judicial practice. For comparison, the basic tenets of the "rules of the simultaneous possession", generated in the United States the right, and the approach of UK legislation governing similar relationship. Going right to the indirect action considered depending on the legal nature of each of the above requirements.

Keywords:

transfer of claims of shareholders, derivative claims, liability of the management of company.

This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article

This article written in Russian. You can find original text of the article here .
References
1. Konstitutsiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 12 dekabrya 1993 g. // SPS «Konsul'tant plyus».
2. Vseobshchaya deklaratsiya prav cheloveka ot 10 dekabrya 1948 g. // SPS «Konsul'tant plyus».
3. Grazhdanskiy kodeks RF. Chast' 1. ot 30 noyabrya 1994 g. // SPS «Konsul'tant plyus».
4. Federal'nyy zakon ot 26 dekabrya 1995 g. ¹ 208-FZ «Ob aktsionernykh obshchestvakh» // SPS «Konsul'tant plyus».
5. Federal rules of civil procedure // http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule23_1.htm.
6. Delaware Code //http://delcode.delaware.gov/title8/c001/sc13/index.shtml.
7. Companies Act 2006 // http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/pdfs/ukpga_20060046_en.pdf.
8. Postanovlenie plenuma VAS RF ot 18 noyabrya 2003 g. ¹ 19 «O nekotorykh voprosakh primeneniya Federal'nogo zakona «Ob aktsionernykh obshchestvakh» // SPS «Konsul'tant plyus».
9. Postanovlenie Plenuma VAS RF ot 30.07.2013 ¹ 62 «O nekotorykh voprosakh vozmeshcheniya ubytkov litsami, vkhodya-shchimi v sostav organov yuridicheskogo litsa» // SPS «Konsul'tant plyus».
10. Postanovlenie Prezidiuma VAS RF ot 2 dekabrya 2003 g. ¹ 9736/03 // SPS «Konsul'tant plyus».
11. Postanovlenie Prezidiuma VAS RF ot 9 dekabrya 2003 g. ¹ 12258/03 // SPS «Konsul'tant plyus».
12. Postanovlenie FAS MO ot 12 aprelya 2006 g. po delu ¹ KG-A40/71-06 // SPS «Konsul'tant plyus».
13. Postanovlenie FAS Moskovskogo okruga ot 19.11.2009 ¹ KG-A40/11855-09 // SPS «Konsul'tant plyus».
14. Hawes v. Oakland // http://supreme.justia.com/us/104/450/case.html.
15. Lopes v. City of Peabody // http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/417/417mass299.html#foot1.
16. Nagy v. Bistrice // http://caselaw.findlaw.com/de-court-of-chancery/1001129.html.
17. Pollitz v. Gould// Reports of Cases. New York, 1911. Reprint. Hong Kong: Forgotten Books, 2013 // http://www. forgottenbooks.org/readbook_text/Reports_of_Cases_1911_1000411383/0.
18. Burtseva L.A. Pravovye problemy primeneniya norm material'nogo i protsessual'nogo prava v kosvennykh iskakh // Sbornik nauchnykh rabot. Vyp. 6. – M.: «Delo» ANKh, 2009.
19. Inshakova A.O. Garmonizatsiya korporativnogo regulirovaniya RF s printsipami kodeksa luchshey praktiki OSER // Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel'stva i sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya. – 2009. – ¹ 2. – S. 94-102.
20. K voprosu o razreshenii sporov, svyazannykh s osparivaniem aktov upravleniya i sdelok aktsionernogo obshchestva, na osnovanii doktriny pravopreemstva. // http://pda.fassko.arbitr.ru/novosti/vestnik/archive/8341.html.
21. Karabel'nikov B.R. Kosvennye iski kak sposob uzakonit' narushenie rossiyskimi kompaniyami ikh sobstvennykh obyazatel'stv // SPS «Konsul'tant plyus».
22. Kozyrevskaya L.A. Normativnoe zakreplenie funktsii kontrolya v organizatsiyakh korporativnogo tipa po zakono-datel'stvu RF i zarubezhnykh stran // Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel'stva i sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya. – 2010. – ¹ 1. – S. 39-47.
23. Krekhaleva L.P. Ideya grazhdansko-pravovogo regulirovaniya korporativnykh otnosheniy // Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel'stva i sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya. – 2011. – ¹ 5. – S. 146-157.
24. Ryasentsev V.A. Pravopreemstvo v sudebnoy i notarial'noy praktike // Sovetskaya yustitsiya. 1977. ¹ 20.
25. Tuzov D.O. Iski, svyazannye s nedeystvitel'nost'yu sdelok: teoreticheskiy ocherk. Tomsk. 1998.
26. Cherepakhin B.B. Pravopreemstvo po sovetskomu grazhdanskomu pravu // SPS «Konsul'tant plyus».
27. Shokhin A.N. Gosudarstvenno-chastnoe partnerstvo i korporativnye praktiki formirovaniya optimal'nykh mekha-nizmov vzaimodeystviya biznesa i vlasti // Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel'stva i sravnitel'nogo pravovede-niya. – 2012. – ¹ 1. – S. 23-36.
28. Yagel'nitskiy A.A. Perekhod prava na osparivanie sdelok khozyaystvennogo obshchestva k priobretatelyu aktsiy: pod-khody rossiyskogo i nekotorykh zarubezhnykh pravoporyadkov // SPS «Garant».
29. Yarkov V.V. Kak «vpisat'» kosvennye iski v protsessual'noe pravo Rossii? // Zakon. 2009. ¹ 6.
30. Companies Act 2006. Explanatory notes // http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/pdfs/ukpgaen_20060046_en.pdf.
31. Eric Kadest. Windfalls.// The Yale Law Journal. Vol. 108. 1999.
32. Ernest L. Folk, III, Review of the Delaware Corporation Law 97. 1967 // http://law.widener.edu/LawLibrary/Research/ OnlineResources/DelawareResources/DelawareCorporationLawRevisionCommittee.aspx.
33. J. Travis Laster. Good bye to the contemporaneous ownership requirement // http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=1314052.
34. Reisberg Arad. Derivative Claims under the Companies Act 2006: Much Ado About Nothing? // http://papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1092629.
35. Reisberg Arad. Derivative Claims, the UK Companies Act 2006 and Corporate Governance: A Roadmap to Nowhere?// In JJ Choi and S Dow (editors) International Finance Review, Volume 9, Institutional Approach to Global Corporate Governance (Emerald Group Publishing, 2009), Chapter 14.
36. Robbie G. Yates. Aurora Credit Services, Inc. v. Liberty West Development, Inc.: An analysis of shareholder derivative suits in closely held corporations // http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200201/ai_n9083001/ pg_3/?tag=content;col1.
37. Roger J. Dennis, Materiality and the Efficient Capital Market Model: A Recipe for the Total Mix // http://works.bepress. com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=roger_dennis
38. Sarah Wells. Comment, Maintaining Standing in a Shareholder Derivative Action // http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/ issues/Vol38/Issue1/DavisVol38No1_Wells.pdf.
39. Shareholder Remedies. Law Commission Report. 1997 // http://www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission/docs/lc246_ Shareholder_Remedies.pdf.
40. The Contemporaneous Ownership Rule in New York// Pace Law Review. 1980. Vol. I.
41. Victor Morawetz. A treatise on the law of private corporations. Vol. II, 2d ed. Boston: Litlle, Brown and company, 1886.
42. Xiaoning Li. A comparative study of shareholders' derivative actions: England, the United States, Germany, and China. Kluwer, 2007
Nota Bene
 
For authors
 
Other
 
Our sites
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.