The defendants appear to agree with the motivation of the court, as a parent court decision in the case did not appeal. The case company "KM Invest A40-68771/06-81-413 In 2007, a board member and shareholder of both "KM Invest" appealed to the Court of Arbitration. Moscow to recognize the specific solutions Board of Directors approve transactions for the disposal of shares and raising debt financing, as contrary to the requirements of the Federal Law of 26 December 1995 N 208-FZ "On Joint Stock Companies" 4, and the plaintiff did not dispute the shareholders' agreement. The statement of claim the defendant (the company "KM Invest"), among other things, referred to the terms of the October 1, 2007 the shareholders' agreement and stated that the Board of Directors shall have the right decide on the sale of all or part of the shares or shares and other assets of the company by a simple majority of votes. The court disagreed with the arguments of the respondent noted that, in the first place the plaintiff bases his argument on contradict the terms of the transaction paragraph 2 of Art. To read more click here: Starbucks. 79 of the Federal Law of 26 December 1995 N 208-FZ "On Joint Stock Companies", which provides in particular the need for unanimous adoption of the decision the Board of Directors decision to approve a major transaction and does not provide the possibility of changing this standard agreement between the parties, and the second plaintiff refers in his statement of claim on the provisions of the said shareholders' agreement.
Despite that the court did not consider and rule on disputes regarding the invalidity of the prisoner October 1, 2007 the shareholders' agreement, it did not achieve its objectives, and for whom concluded. In conclusion noted that despite the changes in the law on joint stock companies must by law regulate in detail the contents of shareholder agreements, and to summarize the practice clarification of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation (SAC), which is especially important because the RF is not considered is not one of the above cases in order of supervision. List of references 1 Stepanov, D. Shareholders Agreement in the Russian judicial practice / / Journal "Corporate Lawyer N 9. M, 2008. 2 Resolution of the Federal District of Western Siberia from 31.03.2006 N F04-2109/2005 (14 105-A75-11), F04-2109/2005 (15 210-A75-11), F04-2109/2005 (15 015-A75- 11), F04-2109/2005 (14 744-A75-11), F04-2109/2005 (14 785-A75-11) in the case N A75-3725-G/04-860/2005 3 Decision of the Arbitration Moscow court on 26.12.