English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In the Russian justice system, the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil was developed at the case  law level and is used to prevent abuse in corporate relationships on the part of those who  control a legal entity in detriment to the property rights of the legal entity’s creditors. Since the  principle of limited liability is important for Russian civil circulation, it is necessary to identify the  relevant grounds for the application of said doctrine and its application criteria. Our objective is to  justify not only the need for preservation of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in the  Russian legal system, but also the development of the doctrine by giving it concrete substance  based on generalization of existing case law. The criteria for applying the doctrine of piercing the  corporate veil are: monitoring the activities of a legal entity by another entity which can influence commercial companies’ decision making, actually or legally; violations or abuse of rights;  existence of a cause-and-effect relationship between a violation or an abuse of rights on the part of the beneficiary and the creditor’s losses; the existence of exceptional circumstances in which it is  impossible to protect the creditors’ legitimate interests with other legal measures; and dispute  arising from private law relations. The main consequence of applying the doctrine of piercing the  corporate veil is the disregard for the corporate entity. Autonomy can manifest in three areas  (extension of a party’s debts to the legal entities under its control; acknowledgement that the  rights and liabilities are actually vested in the party which managed the legal entity;  acknowledgement of the legal entity as a representative of the controlling legal entity).

Protection of property rights based on the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in the russian case law