DOCTRINE OF PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL IN SOME COUNTRIES OF THE ANGLO-SAXON LEGAL SYSTEM THROUGH THE LENS OF RUSSIAN EXPERIENCE
Introduction. Necessity for analysis of the substance and application experience of piercing the corporate veil doctrine in its homeland (in countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal system) is based on the displays of the specified doctrine in Russian corporate legislation. Purpose. The purpose of this research is to identify topical (common to Russian Federation and countries outside the former Soviet Union) problems concerning doctrine of piercing the corporate veil realization, to develop balanced approach to them and to form an independent assessment of the named doctrine capacity in view of domestic legal system. Methodology. The main method used by authors is a comparative legal analysis. Methodological foundations of this research are as well represented by methods of dialectical materialism, formal logic, analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy, systematic and technical-juridical approaches. Research introduces the reader to the doctrine’s provisions and court practice of the USA, Canada and Great Britain studied by authors in the original. Conclusions of this work are based on the specified materials. Results. The principle of separate responsibility of organization and its founders (members) unites legal systems of Russian Federation, Great Britain, USA and Canada. Doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is particularly widespread in the USA, it is also frequently used in Canada, far fewer - in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In that connection, the vagueness of legal formulations related to the application of the doctrine (which is mostly observed in the USA and Canada) creates significant difficulties in terms of consistent court practice forming. Russian courts mainly refrain from using abstract non-codified doctrines in the absence of enacted law norms. Conclusion. Doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in Russian Federation manifests itself in several ways. However direct references to it in acts of Russian courts cannot be considered fully correct until the doctrine would be univocally fixed in domestic federal legislation or in needful directives of the supreme judicial authority. Such a perspective appears acceptable, nevertheless in order to make use of the doctrine effective it is important to explicitly elaborate on the grounds of its application.