On the Evolution of the Domestic Practice of Relations between the Main and Subsidiary Companies

O. Osipenko
{"title":"On the Evolution of the Domestic Practice of Relations between the Main and Subsidiary Companies","authors":"O. Osipenko","doi":"10.37791/2687-0657-2023-17-1-96-105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From the point of view of improving the efficiency of competition law and corporate business management, it is of interest to regulate relations and transactions between the parent and subsidiary organizations. The key to understanding the regulation of relations between the main and subsidiary enterprises is to consider them as a single economic entity and property complex. Therefore, often transactions between the main and subsidiary enterprises are considered as unilateral, gratuitous. In the legal language of Russian justice, the peculiarity of such transactions is called “lack of direct counter representation”. The Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 8989 approved the principle: “The absence of a direct counter-provision is a feature of the relationship between the main and subsidiary companies, which, from an economic point of view, are a single economic entity”. We will look at various cases of jurisprudence (the body of court decisions) that apply this principle, and see how this principle has evolved and developed. Judicial acts referring to Decree No. 8989 have impressively expanded the situational field of its application. Variants of such schemes: gratuitous transfer of fixed assets of the main company to a subsidiary and vice versa, as well as in relations between subsidiary structures; preferential pricing in contractual relations between the main and subsidiary companies, as well as in relations between subsidiary structures (finished products, raw materials, components, energy carriers, works, services, etc.); gratuitous transfer by holding companies of the results of intellectual activity; implementation of the contribution of the main company to the property of the “daughter” in compliance with the procedure established by law; the obligation of the subsidiary company to strictly comply with the specifics of the use of the relevant property established by law for the parent company; forgiveness of the debt of one of the companies associated with corporate control of another; mobilization of dividends of a subsidiary company to pay debts of the main company in the course of its bankruptcy; guarantee transactions of one holding company to secure obligations of another; transactions of preferential borrowing in relations between holding companies; gratuitous transfer of funds from one holding company to another, explicitly or implemented within the framework of a “business contract”.","PeriodicalId":269031,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern Competition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Modern Competition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37791/2687-0657-2023-17-1-96-105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

From the point of view of improving the efficiency of competition law and corporate business management, it is of interest to regulate relations and transactions between the parent and subsidiary organizations. The key to understanding the regulation of relations between the main and subsidiary enterprises is to consider them as a single economic entity and property complex. Therefore, often transactions between the main and subsidiary enterprises are considered as unilateral, gratuitous. In the legal language of Russian justice, the peculiarity of such transactions is called “lack of direct counter representation”. The Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 8989 approved the principle: “The absence of a direct counter-provision is a feature of the relationship between the main and subsidiary companies, which, from an economic point of view, are a single economic entity”. We will look at various cases of jurisprudence (the body of court decisions) that apply this principle, and see how this principle has evolved and developed. Judicial acts referring to Decree No. 8989 have impressively expanded the situational field of its application. Variants of such schemes: gratuitous transfer of fixed assets of the main company to a subsidiary and vice versa, as well as in relations between subsidiary structures; preferential pricing in contractual relations between the main and subsidiary companies, as well as in relations between subsidiary structures (finished products, raw materials, components, energy carriers, works, services, etc.); gratuitous transfer by holding companies of the results of intellectual activity; implementation of the contribution of the main company to the property of the “daughter” in compliance with the procedure established by law; the obligation of the subsidiary company to strictly comply with the specifics of the use of the relevant property established by law for the parent company; forgiveness of the debt of one of the companies associated with corporate control of another; mobilization of dividends of a subsidiary company to pay debts of the main company in the course of its bankruptcy; guarantee transactions of one holding company to secure obligations of another; transactions of preferential borrowing in relations between holding companies; gratuitous transfer of funds from one holding company to another, explicitly or implemented within the framework of a “business contract”.
论我国主子公司关系实践的演变
从提高竞争法和公司经营管理效率的角度来看,规范母公司和子公司之间的关系和交易具有重要意义。理解主子企业关系规制的关键是将其视为一个单一的经济实体和财产综合体。因此,主子企业之间的交易往往被认为是单方面的、没有必要的。在俄罗斯司法的法律语言中,这种交易的特殊性被称为“缺乏直接的反代理”。俄罗斯联邦最高仲裁法院主席团第8989号法令核准了这一原则:“没有直接的反规定是主要公司和附属公司之间关系的一个特点,从经济角度来看,它们是一个单一的经济实体”。我们将研究应用这一原则的法理学(法院判决的主体)的各种案例,并了解这一原则是如何演变和发展的。涉及第8989号法令的司法行为令人印象深刻地扩大了其适用的情境范围。这种方案的变体:将主公司的固定资产无偿转让给子公司,子公司的固定资产无偿转让给子公司,以及子公司结构之间的关系;主子公司之间的合同关系,以及子公司(成品、原材料、零部件、能源载体、工程、服务等)之间的合同关系,给予价格优惠;控股公司对智力活动成果的无偿转让;按照法律规定的程序执行公司对“女儿”财产的出资;子公司严格遵守法律为母公司规定的有关财产的具体使用规定的义务;免除其中一家公司与另一家公司的法人控制权有关的债务;在总公司破产时,调集子公司股息偿还其债务的;一家控股公司为担保另一家控股公司的债务而进行的担保交易;控股公司关系中的优惠借款交易;资金从一家控股公司无偿转移到另一家控股公司,明确地或在“商业合同”的框架内实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信