Abstract
In light of recent trends in law enforcement practice towards expanding the rights of company beneficiaries, the paper examines whether indirect participants have the right to file claims for the so-called restoration of corporate control (clause 3 of Article 65.2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). To assess the prospects for using this rule to protect the interests of beneficial owners, the author analyzed three cases in which indirect participants filed claims for the return of a shareholding lost against their will. The author concludes that the courts' cautious attitude towards satisfying such claims is justified, since otherwise there would be a danger of eroding the principle of property separateness of a legal entity. Nevertheless, it would also be wrong to completely restrict the ability of beneficiaries to bring such claims; however, their satisfaction should only be permitted in exceptional situations, for example in the absence of the possibility of resorting to other remedies. In other words, when indirect participants file claims for the restoration of corporate control, courts should be guided by the logic set out by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the Kufman case.