Civil Code

In addition, the validity of irreducible penalty for some members of civil Traffic (members shareholder agreements), and the inadmissibility of the other enters the confusion of inequality and injustice, would defeat the purpose of maintaining stability in civil commerce, that cause substantial harm to activities of legal entities in which the participants entered into a shareholders agreement. However, it should be noted and a significant risk, even symbolic, to reduce the size of the penalty by the courts, again in the art. 333 Civil Code, which may have a negative impact on practices such as shareholder agreements, undermining their value and turn them into a mere right, do not provide effective protection. In most cases, loss party shareholders’ agreement may arise due to the depreciation of the shares owned by him or the weakening of corporate control, but since the stock swings can be caused by various fears and other subjective reasons, it is possible that during one of the parties breaches the conditions of the shareholder agreement’s stock may not only not decrease but even increase, due to which there can be no certainty as to what as a violation of the shareholder agreement may result in shareholder losses, reflected in the reduction of the value of its shares.

Thus, today, requires a legislative solution to the issue of penalty, which does not exclude would allow judicial review of the establishment of its size, and would not create the possibility of reducing the size of the penalty by the courts to the symbolic, perhaps by specifying criteria in the law, based on which penalty will be considered grossly disproportionate consequences of the violation of the shareholder agreement. List of references 1. Expert opinion of the Presidential Council of the Russian Federation on Codification and improvement of the civil law on the draft Federal Law “On Amendments to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Federal Law” On Joint Stock Companies “,” (in terms of regulating shareholders’ agreements) on 29.10.2007 (Minutes 52) electronic resource. URL: (date accessed: 01.11.2010) 2. Determination of the Constitutional Court from 21.12.2000 N 263-O “to refuse to accept complaints from citizens on Nagovitsyn Krutkov violation of his constitutional rights by the first part of Article 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation “electronic resource. URL: # 51550FA305D6643DD9850DDBB9718737 (date accessed: 07.11.

This entry was posted in News and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Comments are closed.

© 2011-2019 umdstudies.com All Rights Reserved