«Piercing the corporate veil» throuch the mechanism of brining to the subsidiary responsibility in case of bancruptsy

The article describes the possibilities for application in the existing Russian realities of widespread in common law doctrine of "piercing the corporate veil" which is based on current legislation, in particular, on the Federal Law of the Russian Federation dated 26.10.2002 №127-FZ "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)". The mentioned doctrine is actively discussed in business circles in connection with the reform of civil law in the area of corporate law. Until now, in our country there is a tremendous amount of abuse of the legal entity structure for illegal purposes. It seems obvious that it is necessary to develop effective mechanisms to deal with such offenses. Foreign experience shows that the use of the concept of "piercing the corporate veil" can be quite an effective tool to counter asset retirement and other unscrupulous activities of legal entities. In the Russian judicial practice cases of “piercing the corporate veil” are constantly increasing, especially after direct mentioning of this doctrine by Supreme Arbitration Court in the case of Latvian bank "Parex". But still there remain many unresolved issues, in particular, regarding the terms of the circumstances which need to be proved in court, the burden of proof and some others. Since the most frequently mentioned issues arise under the bankruptcy proceedings, it is necessary to analyze the rules of art. 10 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation dated 26.10.2002 №127-FZ "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)" which in fact is one of the mechanisms for “lifting corporate veil" in Russian legislation. The author analyzes the subject composition held, liable persons, range of circumstances which need to be proved in court, as there exist legislative gaps and contradictions that prevent the use of Russian in this legal doctrine. The conclusion is made that it is highly necessary to develop the more detailed law relating to exclusions to the principle of the limitation of liability of the legal entity of participants in order to avoid undue invasion of the independence of the legal entities.