Bruce Marks speaks at RT’s Sanchez Effect in Moscow, Russia

American Perspectives on Global Affairs from Moscow In a recent episode of RT’s Sanchez Effect, host Rick Sanchez welcomed Bruce Marks, a former...

Bruce Marks speaks at ThoughtLeaders4’s Sovereign & States Litigation Summit USA

We’re pleased to announce that Bruce Marks, Founder and Managing Member of Marks & Sokolov, will be speaking at ThoughtLeaders4’s Sovereign...

Bruce Marks Speaks at the Pravo.RU Conference

On September 19, Bruce Marks, Founder and Managing Director of Marks & Sokolov, speaks at the session “Liability Under Control” during...

Sergei Sokolov speaks at the Forbes Federal Legal Forum 2025

On 18 September 2025, Forbes Russia will host the annual Federal Legal Forum in Moscow, a central event for the Russian legal community focusing on...

Marks & Sokolov Secures Another OFAC License for Release of Blocked Russian Client Funds

Marks & Sokolov is pleased to announce another success in our sanctions-related practice: we have obtained an OFAC license authorizing the...

​Updates on the recent Russian-related § 1782 applications – U.S. courts weigh discovery requests tied to sanctions, shareholder disputes, and asset battles.

Section 1782 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code allows parties to seek discovery in U.S. courts for use in foreign proceedings. In recent years, Russian...

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