Corporate Suits Brought by Corporate Members

The protection of rights and legal interests can be carried out by the corporation in the person of its participants, as well as members of management bodies. In the legal literature, claims brought by members of a corporation in defense of its rights and legal interests are traditionally referred to as indirect (derivative). At the same time, indirect suits are initially not typical of the Russian legal order. They originated in Anglo-Saxon law, where there is a dichotomous division into direct suits of participants (direct suits), the possibility of which is an exception to the general rule and is associated with the inability to achieve the goals of legal protection by suing the corporation itself in the person of the participant (derivative suit). It does not seem entirely correct to call the suits brought by a corporation, if they are brought by a participant, indirect, since the corporation is an independent subject of law, and Russian corporate law at the present stage of development does not provide for the possibility of direct claims by the participants of the corporation, bypassing the corporation itself. Taking into account the above, there is no need to separate an indirect claim into a separate category, since this claim is aimed at protecting the rights and legal interests of the direct subject of a disputed substantive legal relationship.

1. Abolonin G. O. Gruppovye iski. — M.: Norma, 2001. — 256 s.

2. Abolonin G. O. Proizvodnye iski // Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess. — 2014. — № 3. — S. 52–58.

3. Andreev V. K. Korporatsiya kak samostoyatelnyy subekt prava // Grazhdanskoe pravo. — 2015. — № 1. — S. 7–13.

4. Andreev V. K. Subektivnoe grazhdanskoe pravo i inye proyavleniya voli i interesa v deyatelnosti yuridicheskikh lits // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. — 2018. — № 8. — S. 58–68.

5. Gutnikov O. V. Fidutsiarnye obyazannosti v rossiyskom korporativnom prave // Grazhdanskoe pravo. — 2019. — № 6. — S. 25–29.

6. Zhurbin B. A. Gruppovye i proizvodnye iski v sudebno-arbitrazhnoy praktike. — M., 2008. — 79 s.

7. Ionova D. Yu. Kosvennye iski kak sposob zashchity interesov uchastnikov kommercheskikh korporatsiy // Rossiyskiy sudya. — 2018. — № 7. — S. 17–22.

8. Kozlova N. V. Grazhdansko-pravovoy status organov yuridicheskogo litsa // Khozyaystvo i pravo. — 2004. — № 8. — S. 42–60.

9. Kolesov P. P. Protsessualnye sredstva zashchity prava. — V. Novgorod, 2004. — 219 s.

10. Kuznetsov A. A. Kosvennye iski v korporativnom prave Rossii: materialno-pravovoy aspekt // Zakon. — 2020. — № 11. — S. 76–86.

11. Kulakov V. V. Obyazatelstvennoe pravo: ucheb. posobie. — M.: RGUP, 2016. — 188 s.

12. Kulakov V. V. Slozhnye obyazatelstva v grazhdanskom prave: avtoref. dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. — M., 2011. — 42 s.

13. Lomakin D. V. Kommercheskie korporatsii kak subekty korporativnykh pravootnosheniy: ucheb. posobie. — M.: Statut, 2020. — 146 s.

14. Mogilevskiy S. D., Samoylov I. A. Korporatsii v Rossii: Pravovoy status i osnovy deyatelnosti. — M.: Delo, 2006. — 480 s.

15. Osokina G. L. Isk (teoriya i praktika). — M.: Gorodets, 2000. — 186 s.

16. Osokina G. L. Problemy iska i prava na isk: dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. — Tomsk, 1989. — 414 s.

17. Osokina G. L. Chi prava zashchishchayutsya kosvennymi iskami? // Rossiyskaya yustitsiya. — 1999. — № 10. — S. 18–19.

18. Popov M. G. Kosvennyy isk: sravnitelno-pravovoy aspekt // Pravo i gosudarstvo: teoriya i praktika. — 2019. — № 6. — S. 62–66.

19. Sukhanov E. A. Ob otvetstvennosti gosudarstva po grazhdansko-pravovym obyazatelstvam // Vestnik VAS RF. — 2001. — № 3. — S. 116–125.

20. Khokhlov V. A. Obshchie polozheniya ob obyazatelstvakh: ucheb. posobie. — M.: Statut, 2015. — 286 s.

21. Charlzvort Dzh. Osnovy zakonodatelstva o kompaniyakh. — M.: Izd-vo inostr. lit., 1958. — 495 s.

22. Chegovadze L. A., Deryugina T. V. Deystviya po realizatsii grazhdanskogo prava v forme ispolzovaniya // Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Yuridicheskie nauki. — 2022. — № 2. — S. 268–280.

23. Cherepakhin B. B. Organy i predstaviteli yuridicheskogo litsa // Cherepakhin B. B. Trudy po grazhdanskomu pravu / nauch. red. S. S. Alekseev. — M.: Statut, 2001. — 479 s.

24. Chugunova E. I. Proizvodnye iski v grazhdanskom i arbitrazhnom protsesse: avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — Ekaterinburg, 2003. — 23 s.

25. Chugunova E. I. Proizvodnye iski v Rossii i za rubezhom // Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess. — 2003. — № 3. — S. 41–47.

26. Shitkina I. S. Otdelnye problemy pravovogo regulirovaniya obrazovaniya i deyatelnosti edinolichnogo ispolnitelnogo organa // Khozyaystvo i pravo. — 2011. — № 4. — S. 3–17.

27. Shitkina I. S. S. D. Mogilevskiy: vklad uchenogo v razvitie teorii i praktiki primeneniya sovremennogo rossiyskogo korporativnogo prava // Grazhdanskoe pravo. — 2022. — № 3. — S. 26–31.

28. Yarkov V. V. Zashchita prav aktsionerov po zakonu «Ob aktsionernykh obshchestvakh» s pomoshchyu kosvennykh iskov // Khozyaystvo i pravo. — 1997. — № 11. — S. 72–78.

29. Yarkov V. V. Kosvennye iski: problemy teorii i praktiki // Korporativnyy yurist. — 2007. — № 11. — S. 52–58.

30. Yarkov V. V. Osobennosti rassmotreniya del po kosvennym iskam // Yurist. — 2000. — № 11. — S. 6–12.

31. Baxter M. P. The Derivative Action under the Ontario Business Corporation Act: A Review of Section 97 // McGill Law Journal. — 1982. — Vol. 27. — Iss. 3. — P. 453–478.

32. Beck S. M. The Shareholders’ Derivative Action // The Canadian Bar Review. — 1974. — Vol. 52. — No. 2. — P. 159–208.

33. Boyle A. J. Minority Shareholders Remedies. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. — 168 p.

34. Brudney V. Contract and Fiduciary Duty in Corporate Law // Boston College Law Review. — 1997. — Vol. 7. — Iss. 4. — No. 4. — P. 595–665.

35. Dalley P. J. The Misguided Doctrine of Stockholder Fiduciary Duties // Hofstra Law Review. — 2004. — Vol. 33. — Iss. 1. — P. 175–222.

36. Davis K. B. The Forgotten Derivative Suit / University of Wisconsin Law School. — Research Paper No. 1055. — 2007. — P. 1–97.

37. Demott D. Shareholder Litigation in Australia and the United States: Common Problems, Uncommon Solutions // Sydney Law Review. — 1987. — Vol. 11. — P. 259–305.

38. Gelter M. Preliminary Procedures in Shareholder Derivative Litigation: A Beneficial Legal Transplant? / ECGI. — Law Working Paper No. 625/2022. — February 2022. — P. 1–30.

39. Gelter M. Why do Shareholder Derivative Suits Remain Rare in Continental Europe? // Brooklyn Journal of International Law. — 2012. — Vol. 37. — Iss. 3. — P. 844–892.

40. Kleinberger D. S. Direct Versus Derivative and the Law of Limited Liability Companies // Baylor Law Review. — 2006. — Vol. 58. — P. 64–138.

41. Kraakman R., Armour J., Davies P. et al. The Anatomy of Corporate Law. — Oxford, 2017. — 281 p.

42. Li X. A Comparative Study of Shareholders’ Derivative Actions. — Shanghai, 2007. — 370 p.

43. Miller P. B. A Theory of Fiduciary Liability // McGill Law Journal. — 2011. — Vol. 56. — No. 2. — P. 237–288.

44. Puchniak D., Baum H., Ewing-Chow M. The Derivative Action in Asia: A Comparative and Functional Approach. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. — 452 p.

45. Ribstein L. E. Are Partners Fiduciaries? // University of Illinois Law Review. — 2005. — Vol. 2005. — No. 1. — P. 209–252.

46. Scarlett A. M. Shareholder Derivative Litigations Historical and Normative Foundations // Buffalo Law Review. — 2013. — Vol. 61. — P. 837–908.

47. Smith D. G. The Critical Resource Theory of Fiduciary Duty // Vanderbilt Law Review. — 2002. — Vol. 55. — P. 1399–1497.

48. Swanson C. B. Juggling Shareholder Rights and Strike Suits in Derivative Litigation: The ALI Drops the Bell // Minnesota Law Review. — 1993. — Vol. 77. — P. 1339–1392.

49. Tanguay J. Minority Shareholders and Direct Suits in Closely Held Corporations Where Derivative Suits Are Impractical: Durham v. Durham // The University of New Hampshire Law Review. — 2009. — Vol. 5. — No. 3. — P. 469–492.

50. Thomas R., Thompson R. The Public and Private Faces of Derivative Lawsuits // Vanderbilt Law Review. — 2004. — Vol. 57. — No. 5. — P. 1747–1793.

51. Tomas G., Hudson A. The Law of Trusts. — N. Y., 2004. — 1907 p.

52. Velasco J. How Many Fiduciary Duties Are There in Corporate Law? // Southern California Law Review. — 2010. — Vol. 83. — P. 1231–1318.

53. Zhang Z. The Shareholder Derivative Action and Good Corporate Governance in China: Why is the Excitement Actually for Nothing? // Pacific Basin Law Journal. — 2011. — Vol. 28. — Iss. 2. — P. 174–209.