Skip to main content

Legal Problems in the Application of Distance Technology at General Meetings of Members of Corporations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Technological Trends in the AI Economy

Abstract

The paper aims to determine the legal conditions for the use of remote access information and communication technologies in decision-making at general meetings of shareholders of corporations, ensuring the implementation of the rights of the participants of the corporation and impeccable will element of decisions. The methodological apparatus of the research includes methods of classification, expert evaluation, comparative analysis, formal–legal method, and the analysis of scientific publications and court and arbitration practice. The authors formulated conclusions on the legal conditions for the application of information and communication technologies of remote access in the decision-making at general meetings. The paper determined legal meaning of regulatory requirements for information and communication technologies of remote access as procedural requirements, the implementation of which ensures the implementation of the right to manage and impeccable will element of decisions by the participants of the corporation. The consequences of violations of the regulatory requirements for information and communication technologies of remote access for the validity of the decision made at the general meeting of members of the corporation were determined. Moreover, the authors substantiated the admissibility of application of identification/authentication of persons during remote general meetings based on the use of human biometric data and AI technologies. The research novelty lies in the approach to the legal conditions of application of information and communication technologies as procedural elements of the legal forms of decision-making at general meetings of shareholders of corporations, ensuring the implementation of the right to management and impeccable will element of the decision by the participants of the corporation. The proposed conclusions are of practical value for optimizing the rule-making and law enforcement activities in the field of corporate governance in the context of digital transformation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Novoselova, L., & Medvedeva, T. (2017). Blockchain for shareholder voting. Economy and Law, 10, 10–21.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Saveliev, A. I. (2020). Electronic commerce in Russia and abroad: Legal regulation (3rd ed.). Statute.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jain, L., & de Wilde, P. (Eds.). (2001). Practical applications of computational intelligence techniques. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0678-1

  4. Ponkin, I. V., & Redkina, A. I. (2018). Artificial Intelligence from the point of view of law. RUDN Journal of Law, 22(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2337-2018-22-1-91-109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Filippova, S. Yu. (2006). Appeal against decisions of the general meeting of the joint-stock company: Problems and prospects of legal regulation. Russian Judge, 5, 35-39.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Tsepov, G. V. (2020). Invalidity of decisions of collegial bodies of business companies: In search of a balance of interests. Bulletin of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation, 2, 60–87.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chekhovskaya, S. A. (2018). Corporate e-governance and corporate governance for e-corporations: Legal aspects. Entrepreneurial Law, 4, 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Russian Federation. (1995). Federal Law “On joint-stock companies” (December 26, 1995 No. 208-FZ, as amended February 25, 2022), Moscow, Russia. Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_8743/. Accessed July 26, 2021.

  9. Russian Federation. (1998). Federal Law “On limited liability companies” (February 8, 1998 No. 14-FZ, as amended February 25, 2022), Moscow, Russia. Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_17819/. Accessed July 26, 2021.

  10. Russian Federation. (2019). Federal Law “On Amendments to clause one, close two, and Article 1124 of part three of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation” (March 18, 2019 No. 34-FZ), Moscow, Russia. Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_320398/. Accessed July 26, 2021.

  11. Russian Federation. (2021). Federal Law “On amendments to the first part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation” (June 28, 2021 No. 225-FZ), Moscow, Russia. Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_388479/. Accessed July 26, 2021.

  12. Arbitration Court of the Ural Federal District. (2018). Ruling in the case No. A60–59478/2017 (September 24, 2018 No. F09–4539/18). Yekaterinburg, Russia. Retrieved from https://sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/X7mUp2XvzKQT/. Accessed July 26, 2021.

  13. Arbitration Court of the Central Federal District. (2017). Ruling in the case No. A83–1267/2016 (March 27, 2017 No. F10–63/17), Kaluga, Russia. Retrieved from https://base.garant.ru/40188668/. Accessed July 26, 2021.

  14. Arbitration Court of the Northwestern Federal District. (2019). Ruling in the case No. A56–55697/2017 (March 21, 2019 No. F07–1921/2019), St. Petersburg, Russia. Retrieved from https://sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/kXLeZ7mjuMYO/. Accessed July 26, 2021.

  15. First Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction. (2021). Court ruling of May 26, 2021 (No. 88–13023/2021). Saratov, Russia. Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&base=KSOJ001&n=48158#GDNWo0T8k1iJPPix. Accessed July 26, 2021.

  16. Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. (2019). Review of judicial practice on certain issues of application of the legislation on business companies (December 25, 2019), Moscow, Russia. Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_341476/. Accessed July 26, 2021.

  17. Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation. (1993). Fundamentals of the legislation of the Russian Federation on notaries (February 11, 1993 No. 4462–1, as amended July 2, 2021), Moscow, Russia. Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_1581/. Accessed July 26, 2021.

  18. Russian Federation. (2020). Federal Law “On the experiment to establish special regulation to create the necessary conditions for the development and implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in the subject of the Russian Federation – the city of federal significance of Moscow and amending Articles 6 and 10 of the Federal law ‘On personal data’” (April 24, 2020 No. 123-FZ), Moscow, Russia. Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_351127/. Accessed July 26, 2021.

  19. VTB Registrar JSC. (n.d.). Meetings Portal. Retrieved from https://www.vtbreg.com/pos/. Accessed July 26, 2021

  20. Independent Registrar Company JSC. (n.d.). Shareholder 24/7. Retrieved from http://nrcreg.ru/nrc247/shareholder247/default.aspx. Accessed July 26, 2021

  21. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. (2017). Ruling of Judicial Chamber on Civil Cases of January 10, 2017 (No. 4-KG16–66). Retrieved from https://legalacts.ru/sud/opredelenie-verkhovnogo-suda-rf-ot-10012017-n-4-kg16-66/. Accessed July 26, 2021.

  22. Arbitration Court of the Ural Federal District (2014). Ruling in the case No. A07–2621/2014 (December 25, 2014 No. F09–9269/14), Yekaterinburg, Russia. Retrieved from https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/38514869/. Accessed July 26, 2021

  23. Demogue, R. (1911). Les notions fondamentales du droit prive: Essai critique. France.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Russian Federation. (2006). Federal Law “On information, information technology, and information protection” (July 27, 2006 No. 149-FZ), Moscow, Russia. Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_61798/. Accessed July 26, 2021.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was prepared as part of the state research task 5.4. “Current legal model of decentralized regulation of corporate relations in a digitalized economy.” (2022)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vitaly V. Vanin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Vanin, V.V., Mogilevsky, S.D., Leskova, Y.G., Shmaliy, O.V., Dushakova, L.A. (2023). Legal Problems in the Application of Distance Technology at General Meetings of Members of Corporations. In: Makarenko, E.N., Vovchenko, N.G., Tishchenko, E.N. (eds) Technological Trends in the AI Economy. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 625. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7411-3_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics