LIMITATION PERIOD ON REQUIREMENTS
ON THE BRINGING TO SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY
IN BANKRUPTCY

A.V. EGOROV,
Candidate of Legal Sciences,
First Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Alexeev Private Law Research Centre
under the President of the Russian Federation, Professor,
Director of the Russian School of Private Law

DOI: 10.24031/1992-2043-2018-18-4-132-153

The author of the article notes misbalance in the issues of bringing heads of debtors to
subsidiary liability due to unsatisfactory regulation in the Law on bankruptcy starting
form 2009 that was the initial moment for calculation of limitation period for such
claims. Only in the course of the reform of 2017 the issues of limitation period were
clearly established in the Law on bankruptcy. The cases being decided by the courts
nowadays and which relate to the previous period show that the limitation period can
be five, six or even nine years (instead of three years laid by law) because the initial
moment of limitation period calculation is determined incorrectly. This controversial
position goes back to the resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of
the Russian Federation of 7 June 2012 No. 219/12. The author of the article explains
why the position of the above mentioned resolution cannot be applied after the further
changes in the legislation.


Keywords: bankruptcy; subsidiary liability of heads; limitation period; operation of the
Law on bankruptcy in time.

References

Budylin S.L. Pretsedent na rasput’e. Kratkaya istoriya sudebnogo pravotvorchestva
v Rossii [A Precedent at the Crossroads. A Brief History of the Judicial Lawmaking
in Russia] (in Russian) // Herald of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation.
2015. No. 11.
Egorov A.V., Usacheva K.A. Doktrina «snyatiya korporativnogo pokrova» kak
instrument raspredeleniya riskov mezhdu uchastnikami korporatsii i inymi
sub’ektami oborota [The Doctrine of “Piercing Corporate Veil” as an Instrument
of Risk Sharing Between the Participants of the Corporation and Other Subjects of
Turnover] (in Russian) // Herald of Civil Law. 2014. No. 1.
Egorov A.V., Usacheva K.A. Subsidiarnaya otvetstvennost’ za dovedenie do bankrotstva
– neudachnyj ekvivalent zapadnoj doktriny snyatiya korporativnogo pokrova
[Subsidiary Responsibility for Bringing to Bankruptcy is an Unsuccessful Equivalent
of the Western Doctrine of Piercing Corporate Veil] (in Russian) // Bulletin
of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. 2013. No. 12.
Englard I. Corrective and Disributive Justice: From Aristotle to Modern Times.
Oxford University Press, 2009.
Golovnina E.N. Ischislenie i primenenie iskovoj davnosti po obosoblennym
sporam v delakh o bankrotstve [Calculation and Application of Statute of Limitations
for Isolated Disputes in Cases of Bankruptcy] (in Russian) // Judge. 2017. No. 8.
Gordley G. The Philosophical Origins of Modern Contract Doctrine. Clarendon
Press, 1991 (reprinted 2011).
Ivanov A.A. Rech’ o pretsedente: Vystuplenie Predsedatelya VAS RF na Tret’ikh senatskikh
chteniyakh v KS RF 19 marta 2010 g. [Speech on the Precedent: Speech by the
Chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation at the Third
Senate Readings at the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on 19 March
2010] (in Russian) // http://arbitr.ru/press-centr/news/speeches/27369.html.
Miftakhutdinov R.T. Evolyutsiya instituta subsidiarnoj otvetstvennosti pri bankrotstve:
prichiny i posledstviya pravovoj reformy [Evolution of the Institute of Subsidiary
Liability in Bankruptcy: The Reasons and Consequences of Legal Reform] (in
Russian) // Law. 2018. No. 5.
Mikhalchuk Yu.S. Otvetstvennost’ aktsionerov i menedzhmenta banka pri bankrotstve
[Responsibility of Shareholders and Management of the Bank in Bankruptcy]
(in Russian) // Bank Review. 2015. No. 2.
Nersesyants V.S. Pravo – matematika svobody. Opyt proshlogo i perspektivy [Law
Is the Mathematics of Freedom. Past Experience and Prospects] (in Russian). Moscow,
1996.
Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.
Sdelki, predstavitel’stvo, iskovaya davnost’: postatejnyj kommentarij k stat’yam 153–
208 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossijskoj Federatsii [Transactions, Representation, Limitation
of Actions: An Article-by-Article Commentary on Articles 153–208 of the Civil
Code of the Russian Federation] (in Russian) / Ed. by A.G. Karapetov. Moscow, 2018.


Information about the author

Egorov A.V. (Moscow) – Candidate of Legal Sciences, First Deputy Chairman
of the Board of the Alexeev Private Law Research Centre under the President of the
Russian Federation, Professor, Director of the Russian School of Private Law (103132,
Moscow, Ilyinka St., 8, Bldg. 2; e-mail: law_egorov@rambler.ru).

Наши партнеры

Our partners

unnamed.png
Юстина.png
логотип РС серый фон.png

Copyright © 2006-2019 

Вестник гражданского права. Все права защищены. 
«ИД В. Ема»: 119454, Москва, ул. Лобачевского, 92, корп. 2

Civil law review. All rights reserved.

«ID V.Ema»: 119454, Moscow, ul. Lobachevsky, 92, building. 2