• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site
Search

Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 21 February 2014 № 3-П on the review of constitutionality of paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Federal law “On Limited Liability Companies” upon the petition of the limited liability company “Firma Reiting”

The constitutionality of the contested provision, as soon as it enables one or several members of the company, who disagree with the decision of the general meeting of company’s shareholders to increase its charter capital, to obstruct this decision by way of refusal from or delay in contributing their part of additional capital.

Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 23 October 2012 № 7508/12 in the case Citizen Ivanov et al. vs The company “Sibtechgaz”

Point of law: the possibility to provide in company’s internal regulations for additional requirements to candidate directors (members of the board).

Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 24 May 2012 № 151 “The Review of the Practice of Consideration by Commercial Courts of the Disputes Connected with the Exclusion of a Member from a Limited Liability Company”

In the opinion of the Presidium, a member may be excluded from a limited liability company only if he commits actions which knowingly inflict harm upon the company, thereby destroying trust among members and obstructing the continuation of normal activities of the company.

Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 24 April 2012 № 16404/11 in the case The company “Olimpia” vs The company “Parex banka” et al.

Points of law: 1) whether the actual presence in the territory of the Russian Federation of a representative office of a foreign legal entity constitutes, under the Agreement between the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (1993), a sufficient ground for assuming jurisdiction by a Russian commercial court with regard to a dispute involving the aforementioned foreign legal entity, or it is only the formal presence of a properly registered representative office that may constitute the necessary precondition for such assuming of jurisdiction?; or 2) whether it is essential, for the purposes of determining the jurisdiction (proper venue), that the Russian branches of the foreign legal entity did not take part in assisting the disputed transactions?

Decision of the Supreme Commercial Court of 21 February 2012 № 14589/11

Point of law: whether the Order of the Ministry of Culture of 25 August 2010 is lawful to the extent in which it places upon the commercial entities the duty to store a large number of various documents (enumerated in the Order) and prescribes periods for their storage?

 

Have you spotted a typo?
Highlight it, click Ctrl+Enter and send us a message. Thank you for your help!
To be used only for spelling or punctuation mistakes.