The article deals with the problem of a controlling person’s liability for taking an excessive business risk in the vicinity of insolvency. Applying methods of economic analysis of law the author concludes that, in general case, a controlling person of a commercial corporation is liable towards creditors of a debtor only for those actions that are committed by him with an intention to harm creditors.
The article is devoted to an objective assessment of business judgment. The author analyses the concepts of reasonableness and good faith of director’s activities in the interests of the organisation. The author concludes that the greater degree of uncertainty, the more relationship between the organisation and the director take a game character. Due to the increasing complexity of the economic system, including a sharp increase in the scale and speed of information exchange, the use of traditional legal tools is extremely limited.
The article covers problems of cross-border insolvency and insolvency of cross-border
groups which are to be discussed at the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum.
Problems and issues of legislators and legal professionals arising from insolvency
complicated by foreign element are considered in the context of the world’s largest
insolvencies. Author lays special emphasis upon the fact that the lack of legal base
does not exclude Russia of such world tendencies as unification and competition of
insolvency regulation. Our national legal community faces challenges of exploration of
cross-border insolvency, and particularly of international practice in this sphere, with
the aim to propose possible solutions to the legislator. Legislator is after all at the point
where the need for imposing special rules for addressed legal matters becomes urgent
The paper is focused on the analysis of possible ways of improvement of existing personal data legislation in order to eliminate unreasonable barriers to the implementation of Big Data technologies in light of associated risks: data leaks, improper use of data, processing of imprecise data, and discriminatory practices. The author criticizes legislative initiatives to liberalize collection processing and aggregation of user data in social networks and other publicly available data by exempting it from the existing regulatory framework for data protection. It is argued that adequate protection of privacy rights of internet users is necessary, since user data is a continuation of personality in digital area and any non-controlled use of it by commercial companies may lead to loss of trust in online services and dictatorship of data.
Almost two years have passed since the adoption of the governmental program “Digital Economy”. However, as the texts of draft laws relating to regulation of data —the main asset in the digital economy —show, no holistic approach to its regulation has been developed so far. Instead, a fragmentary and chaotic approach dominates, with the main goals to ‘patch’ the existing legal framework and correct some extremes in law enforcement practice. At the same time, the massive usage of data in social life creates not only new business models and innovative solutions but also new risks, which cannot be adequately mitigated by using existing legal instruments of the analogue/offline age. Therefore, there is a pressing need for development of the concept of data regulation in the digital economy, which would reflect the core principles forming the future data governance framework. This paper represents an effort to provide such principles, based on the analysis of the existing experience of other jurisdictions and discussions at various forums.
The present paper deals with forms of interaction between nonprofit organisations and public authorities. It begins with a short excursus to the domestic history of interaction between the state and the nonprofit sector, and then presents the analysis of theories explaining the differences in interaction between the state and nonprofit organisations. Each theory enables to explain the inclusion of the relevant provisions (for example, on the giving of tax benefits or grants to nonprofit organisations) into the foreign and Russian legislation on nonprofit organisations. The paper concludes with the analysis of specific forms of interaction between nonprofit organisations and public authorities.
The paper looks at wrongful removal and wrongful retention – two types of child abduction identified by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980 (Russia has become its member in 2011). The author explains the difference between these concepts and the reasons why it is important to accurately fix the date of the wrongful removal (retention). The author also focuses on the major component of wrongful removal (retention), which is a consent of a person (parent) from whom the child has been presumably abducted to the child’s removal (retention). If a parent does not make any objections, neither removal nor retention can be seen as child abduction. The paper also presents a brief analysis of the Neustadt case defined by English courts as “the anatomy of an abduction”.