On the 29 of September in Krasnodar "Pravo.ru" held a conference, dedicated to the legal challenges of the Krasnodar region, but the topics were quite universal. At a session of real estate law, experts told how to litigate a cadastral mistake in crossing the border and how to get greater compensation for the seizure of land. In addition, the speakers noted the recent changes in corporate and bankruptcy laws and gave practical advice to colleagues.
The participants touched upon other land issues. Partner of real estate and construction practice of the National Law Company “Mitra” Roman Djakov spoke about the details of transactions with shared ownership.
There were interesting changes in the corporate legislation that were reported by Zaurbek Akhmetov, the executive director of the National Law Company “Mitra”. According to him, for many procedures, the deadlines were shortened, and the rules for holding general meetings changed. In 2017, an important block of changes regarding related-party transactions and major transactions came into effect. In practice, with such transactions, Akhmetov sees distortions in both directions: some companies generally ignore the rules (but this threatens possible challenge), and sometimes, on the contrary, the general director doesn`t want to take responsibility and proposes to decide the board of directors.
The rules for access to information have changed, and there have been expanded versions of articles with a list of documents available to any participant or shareholder (although in JSC everything still depends on owning a particular percentage of shares). According to Akhmetov, this is useful to participants who no longer treat their participation as lightly as before. Now, according to the observations of a lawyer, a wave of corporate disputes has risen, including around access to information. On the other hand, a list of documents that society should keep is added, Akhmetov said.
How to determine which transaction for the company is large? There is not enough cost criterion. Will clarify the law, what activities are normal for the company. For example, one landlord leased a complex to a "parent" firm. Director "daughter" worried that the formal criteria for the transaction is large, and the relationship with minority shareholders they have been strained. But we have issued a conclusion that the deal is not large. After all, the lease continued for 15 years, the company did not stop activities, and only the rent changed.
Material were taken from “Pravo.ru”
