Business Judgement of Majority Shareholder Rule in Context of Legal Nature of Non-public Commercial Corporation
( Pp. 97-102)

Goal. In the article we research applicability of business judgement rule to actions of a majority shareholder taking in the account specificities of non-public commercial corporations. Analysis of application of the rule to a majority shareholder’s actions in view of non-public corporation’s legal nature was conducted only in the Peeples’ paper [13]. However, this analysis fails to take into the account ability of shareholders of corporations to apply informal sanctions against each other. The goal of this article is to supplement current understanding of legal nature of non-public corporation and to elaborate additional grounds for application of the rule. Inferences. In the article we confirm the conclusion that justification of application of the rule in non-public corporations has specificities derivative from the legal nature of such corporations. Besides that, we conclude that the rule’s application may depend upon ability of shareholders to deter opportunistic behavior by informal sanctions. Value. The article for the first time proves that the legal nature of non-public corporations depends not only upon trust between shareholders, but from their ability to apply informal sanctions as a mean of protection from opportunistic behavior of a counteragent. Given this, we suppose that the state’s role in protection of rights and interests of minority shareholders may be decreased.

Ledenev V.V., (2022), BUSINESS JUDGEMENT OF MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER RULE IN CONTEXT OF LEGAL NATURE OF NON-PUBLIC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION. Sociopolitical Sciences, 4 => 97-102.

Boyko T.S. Protection of rights and interests of minority shareholders of non-public corporations in law of Russia, the USA and the Great Britain. Moscow: Statut, 2019. 255 p.
Glazunov A.Y. Protection of rights and interests of shareholders of business companies on example of particular institutes of civil law: Dis. … Cand. Sci. (Law). Moscow, 2021. 253 p.
Tsepov G.V. Is it allowed to judge for stupidity? Business judgement and its objective evaluation. RLS “ConsultantPlus”. Statute. 2015. No. 12. (In Rus.)
Blanchard S. How business networks govern exchange: Contracts without courts or clans. 2021. Pp. 1-66. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm abstract id 3780925
Charny D. Nonlegal sanctions in commercial relationships // Harvard Law Review. 1990. Vol. 104. No. 2. Pp. 373-467.
Easterbrook F.H., Fischel D.R. The economic structure of corporate law. London: Harvard University Press, 1991. 370 p.
Gevurtz F.A. The business judgment rule: Meaningless verbiage or misguided notion // South California Law Review. 1994. No. 67. Pp. 287-337.
Gil R., Zanarone G. Formal and informal contracting: Theory and evidence // Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 2017. Vol. 13. Pp. 141-159.
Gordon S.D. The modern business judgment rule // Research Handbook on Mergers and Acquisitions. 2016. Pp. 83-98.
Hadfield G.K., Bozovic I. Scaffolding: Using formal contracts to support informal relations in support of innovation // Wisconsin Law Review. 2016. No. 5. Pp. 981-1032.
Kahan M. The limited significance of norms for corporate governance // University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 2001. No. 6. Pp. 1869-1900.
Milhaupt C.J. Creative norm destruction: The evolution of nonlegal rules in Japanese corporate governance // University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 2001. No. 6. Pp. 2083-2129.
Peeples R.A. Use and misuse of the business judgment rule in the close corporation // Notre Dame Law Review. 1985. Vol. 60. Issue 3. Pp. 456-509.
Rosenberg D. Supplying the adverb: The future of corporate risk-taking and the business judgment rule. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm abstract id 1266723
Sharfman B.S. The importance of the business judgement rule // New York University Journal of Law Business. 2017. Vol. 14. No. 1. Pp. 27-69.

non-public corporations, majority shareholder, minority shareholder, business judgement rule.