Перспективы применения доктрины «снятия корпоративной вуали» при привлечении к субсидиарной ответственности контролирующих должника лиц в Российской Федерации: сравнительно-правовой подход
The article discusses the issue of the formation of the doctrine of “piercing the corporate veil” in various legal systems in order to determine the possibility of its application when bringing persons controlling the debtor to subsidiary liability in case of insolvency (bankruptcy) in Russia. In the study, general and specific methods of cognition were used: retrospective, historical, logical, and comparative legal. Methods of logical analysis and dialectics were applied, which together with the seeming contradictions of a significant number of scholarly views allow concluding about their unity and constructiveness. It has been established that, in order to use the “piercing” doctrine as a procedural tool to ignore the property isolation of a legal entity, the courts conduct multi-stage tests to justify the need for such use and prove the exclusivity of the case in question. The importance of the legislative introduction of the concept “person controlling the debtor” is noted in connection with the use of corporate structures and forms of informal control, as well as clear criteria for control and circumstances that presume harm to creditors. Based on the analysis of judicial practice, conclusions were drawn about the main ways of abuse of rights when using corporate governance. The question of the possibility of including the claims of participants (shareholders), company managers and interested parties in the register of claims of the debtor’s creditors is problematic in judicial practice. It is concluded that, due to being in the same legal family, the approach of German law enforcement officers to piercing the corporate veil, better known as responsibility for “destructive interference” in the affairs of society, and to recovering damage caused to creditors under the current legislation is close to Russian law. In this connection, the practice of applying the doctrine in Germany can be regarded as a useful experience for Russian law. Taking into account the precedent legal nature of the doctrine of “piercing the corporate veil”, the authors come to the conclusion that it is impossible to borrow it by domestic law. At the same time, Russian law, the main source of which is normative legal acts, if necessary, selects current trends in ways of solving problems that meet the needs of society and the legal community.