The article deals with legal ways of resolving uncertainties and opportunism in distribution of company profits. The author comes to a conclusion that it is impossible to create a one-size-fits-all formula of dividend payment usable in courts in resolving disputes. Purchasing shares (a share in authorised capital) and acting reasonably an investor intends to get his investments back over a planning horizon provided successful activities of a company. To do that he is given a combination of options: receive dividends, sell shares or get a liquidation quota. The difficulties of objectivisation of profit distribution in successful activities of a company should be offset not by expansion of judicial discretion in disputes over dividend payments, but by legal mechanisms providing share buyouts if there are no dividend payments.
There is a large number of opinions in criminal law science, devoted to the differences between Art. 163 and Art. 179 of Criminal Code of Russian Federation. Court practice has not yet developed a unified position on the main criteria of difference between extortion and compulsion to make a deal despite the contradictions of corpus delicti. These factors are influence on the right classification of crimes and judicial practice. There are not much criminal cases which are connected with compulsion to make a deal, most criminal offences are classified as extortion. Although Chapter 22 of the Criminal Code is the most subject to change, the issue of improving Art. 179 has not yet been considered by the legislator.
The principle of justice of administrative proceedings as a procedural principle should have its own specific content. Without this content, the courts cannot apply this principle in administrative cases. Comparison of the possible content of the principle of justice with the principles of legality and equality and analysis of the possibility of disclosure of the principle of justice through the characteristics of consideration (through the active role of the court and the distribution of the burden of proof) and resolution (identification with the means of checking the administrative discretion) of administrative cases show that the principle of justice does not have its procedural content and does not bear any meaning that allows to apply it in administrative proceedings.