Lessons that May be Learned from Failed Transactions and a Proposal for Owners of Aircraft and Yachts on the OFAC SDN List

While it is possible to buy a grounded Russian owned aircraft if the owner and the aircraft are not on the OFAC SDN List (the U.S. Office of Foreign...

Bruce Marks, Managing Member of Marks & Sokolov, LLC, speaks at the XII St. Petersburg International Legal Forum held on June 26-28, 2024

Bruce Marks, Managing Member of Marks & Sokolov, LLC, is invited to speak at the XII St. Petersburg International Legal Forum held on June...

$7,695,000 Claim Against Kanye 2020 Presidential Campaign Successfully Dismissed

Marks & Sokolov attorneys Bruce Marks and Tom Sullivan successfully obtained dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) of a $7,695,000 claim against...

Bruce Marks gives interview to Russian NTV

Bruce Marks, former republican Pennsylvania State Senator, gives interview to Russian TV on Trump and Biden's Michigan visits  

Marks & Sokolov, LLC Obtains Recognition of Over $20 Million in Russian Judgments, Update

In November 2021, Marks & Sokolov obtained a significant victory in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on behalf of a leading Russian...

RBK – Russia gets new lawyers to represent its interest against Yukos

Россия нашла адвокатов для защиты от ЮКОСа, несмотря на санкции По меньшей мере три западных юрфирмы решили не представлять интересы России в...

Important Developments in the Fiduciary Duties of Officers and Directors of Russian Companies

by | Dec 20, 2013 | Blog, Publications

December 20, 2013

By: Maria Grechishkina

In the year 2013 Russian law received an unprecedented interpretation of what is known in the Western legal doctrine as fiduciary duties of the corporate officers and directors.
The term “Good Faith” is not a complete novelty to the Russian Civil Law. However it is the first time the concept of “Good Faith” is defined as a fundamental principle of the Russian civil law. The amendment to the Article 1 of the Civil Code imposes an obligation on individuals and legal entities to act in good faith and prohibits them from benefiting from their own unlawful or bad faith behavior.
The concept further received important clarifications by the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court in the Resolution No. 62, dated 30 July 2013:

  • An officer is deemed liable if he acted in bad faith or unreasonably
  •  An officer can be held liable:

 –          for the same actions committed by the company’s contractors and/or employees;

–          for entering into transactions on disadvantageous conditions;

–          if company is held liable for administrative or tax violations as a result of his bad faith or performance of actions against all sense;

  • A general director cannot avoid liability even if his actions that were approved by the company’s Board;
  •  An officer can face burden of proof per court order if he refuses to provide explanations for his actions or if his explanations are deemed insufficient, when the company incurred damages which might be through the officer’s actions;
  • An officer can avoid liability if:

 –          an officer’s actions may be considered a reasonable business risk;

–          company obtained recovery for damages of losses;

–          the officer voted  against or did not vote for a decision that resulted in damages;

–          the unfavorable transaction was part of a series of related transactions that altogether should have been profitable;

–          The director could not have been sure as to the unlawfulness of his or his company’s actions due to the absence of a unified, official position of state authorities (should damages be imposed as a result of administrative liability).

For more on changes in the legislation regulating liability of the officers a Russian company and the Russian Civil Law reform please contact: Maria Grechishkina mgrechishkina@mslegal.com or Sergey Sokolov ssokolov@mslegal.com