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...

1782 Discovery Blog: International Wires Frozen Subject To U.S. Sanctions May Be Released Pursuant To OFAC License

The United States has imposed sanctions on certain Russian individuals, companies and banks which prohibit U.S. persons from conducting business...

U.S. SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA

The United States has imposed sanctions on certain Russian individuals, companies and banks which prohibit U.S. persons from conducting business...

The Question Of Whether 28 U.S.C. §1782 Allows Discovery For Use In Private International Arbitration Is Back Before The U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. allows parties to non-U.S. litigation proceedings to obtain documents and witness testimony from sources within the U.S., even if such...

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