THE DOCTRINE OF BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP IN RUSSIAN LAW

Authors

  • Tikhon Podshivalov

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54934/ijlcw.v2i2.70

Keywords:

Keywords: civil law, corporate law, piercing of corporate veil, beneficial ownership.

Abstract

The article deals with the problems of differentiation of the spheres of application of doctrine, the piercing corporate veils and the doctrine of beneficial ownership. Both of these doctrines are used to challenge corporate decisions. Challenging is possible if a person exercising corporate control has abused them, or has lost the reality of its course. The article proposes solution of the problem when persons controlling a legal entity, thus structuring contractual relations, so as not to lose control over the company and in cases of introduction of bankruptcy procedures, and transfer of management by its creditor. The doctrine of beneficial ownership is applicable where the following conditions are met: the beneficiary makes a full disclosure of corporate information and details of the business structure; the complexity of the business structure is immaterial; the beneficiary has proved that he exercised corporate control over the company whose decision or transaction he is contesting, but has lost this control as a result of wrongdoing; the contested resolution of the company's general meeting is void (voidable); the beneficiary has acted in good faith; the beneficiary has motivation due to fear of financial losses, which he is certain to suffer unless the transaction or decision is contested; the doctrine is applied by way of exception.

 

References

Black’s Law Dictionary / ed. by Bryan A. Garner (1999), St. Paul: West Group.

Brown, A. (2017) “A Theory of Legitimate Expectations”, Journal of Political Philosophy, 25(4), pp. 435–460. DOI 10.1111/jopp.12135

Colla, A.-F. (2017) “Elements for a General Theory of Legitimate Expectations”, Moral Philosophy and Politics, 4(2), pp. 283-305. DOI 10.1515/mopp-2017-0040

Merriam-Webster (1996) Merriam-Webster's Inc., Retrieved 27.06.2023.

Moore, M. (2017) “Legitimate Expectations and Land”, Moral Philosophy and Politics, 4(2), pp. 229-255 DOI 10.1515/mopp-2017-0002

Podshivalov, T. (2018) “Protection of Property Rights Based on the Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil in the Russian Case Law”, Russian Law Journal, 6(2), pp. 39-72. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2018-6-2-39-72

Podshivalov, T.P. (2021) “Property legitimate expectation as a basis for the application of real action”, Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 13(4), pp. 102–123. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17323/2072-8166.2021.4.102.123

The common law and Europe (2013), The Hamlyn lectures, Cambridge University Press in Spring 2014. http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/hrlc/documents/specialevents/laws-lj-speech-hamlyn-lecture-2013.pdf

Thomas, R. (2000) Legitimate Expectations and Proportionality in Administrative Law, Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Vicente, M.N. (2020) “Property rights and legitimate expectations under united states constitutional law and the European convention on human rights: Some comparative remarks”, Comparative Law Review, 26, pp. 51–96. DOI 10.12775/CLR.2020.002

Watson J. (2010) “Clarity and ambiguity: A new approach to the test of legitimacy in the law of legitimate expectations”, Legal Studies, 30(4), pp. 633-652. DOI 10.1111/j.1748-121X.2010.00177.x

Downloads

Published

2023-12-28