Responsibility of the Executive Body of a Legal Entity for Fraud

The paper discusses various legislative and enforcement approaches in the Russian Federation, USA, and Great Britain; compares the various provisions of the Plenums of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on issues of good faith; analyzes the application of these provisions by the courts when considering issues of holding directors to account as a result of malpractice that entailed property damage. By the example of consideration of a number of key cases from the law enforcement practice of the courts of the Anglo-American system of law, the question of the use of tests is considered: objective and subjective integrity tests to regulate the issue of holding the executive body accountable. English and American courts resort to the criterion of good faith in very rare cases, and the fiduciary duty of directors in commercial companies was significantly limited. The approach used by the common law courts implies a minimal degree of court interference in the economic affairs of commercial companies. Holding the director accountable is allowed only in case of obvious neglect of duties or is considered in some cases based on the specific circumstances of the case. Russian courts often hold directors accountable not as a result of gross negligence or proven intentional actions by executive bodies to harm the company, but as a result of society not achieving the desired economic result. Besides, dishonesty compensates for obvious gaps in the internal corporate routine, which do not make it possible to precisely determine the boundaries of authority and the area of responsibility of the executive body. The author formulates a conclusion on the degree of admissible judicial discretion when applying the provisions on good faith to corporate relations as requiring special regulation.

1. Afanas’eva E. G., Vajpan V. A., Gabov A. V. i dr. Korporativnoe pravo : uchebnyj kurs : v 2 t. / otv. red. I. S. Shitkina. — M. : Statut, 2018. — T. 2. — 990 s.

2. Belyh V. S. Princip svobody dogovora v anglijskom prave: doktrina i sudebnaya praktika // Pravo i gosudarstvo. — 2015. — № 4 (69). — S. 30—35.

3. Karapetov A. G. Problemnye voprosy primeneniya st. 174 GK RF // Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava — 2018. — № 1. — S. 86—147.

4. Kashanina T. V. Korporativnoe pravo. — M. : Norma, Infra-M, 1999. — 500 s.

5. Kommentarij k Grazhdanskomu kodeksu Rossijskoj Federacii. Chast’ pervaya ot 30 noyabrya 1994 g. № 51-FZ (postatejnyj) / N. A. Ageshkina, N. A. Barinov, E. A. Bevzyuk i dr. — M., 2016. — 712 s.

6. Shitkina I. S. Korporativnoe pravo : uchebnik. — M. : Knorus, 2015. — 428 s.

7. Weissbrodt D., Kruger M. Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights // Am. J. Int’l L. — 2003. — 97. — Pp. 901—922.

8. Lowry J., Reisberg A. Pettet’s Company Law: Company Law and Corporate Finance. — 4th Ed. — Pearson, 2012. — 588 r.

9. Kelly D. Business Law. — 3rd Ed. — Routledge, 2017.

10. Griffith S. J. Good Faith Business Judgment: A Theory of Rhetoric in Corporate Law Jurisprudence // Duke L. J. — 2005. — 55. — Rp. 1—73.

11. Lubben S. J. Railroad Receiverships and Modern Bankruptcy Theory // Cornell L. Rev. — 2004. — 89. — Rp. 1426—1432.