Abstract
The article deals with the issues of delegation of public functions by the state to a private entity in the process of insolvency (bankruptcy). The author comes to the conclusion that such delegation does not lead to the loss of public status by the transferred functions, at the same time, the entities implementing such functions (meetings of creditors, arbitration managers) act on their own behalf, and not on behalf of the Russian Federation, and pursue not public, but exclusively private interests. This is the fundamental difference between the issues under study and other public procedures, in which the state also delegates public functions to private entities (for ex-ample, if we talk about arbitration proceedings, these are arbitration assessors, in criminal proceedings – ju-rors), but such entities do not realize a private interest, but a public one. Conclusion dwells upon the fact that the delegation of state powers to private entities in the field of insolvency (bankruptcy) occurs in the form of "trans-fer", i.e. the powers are transferred to the recipient in full, while the state retains only the control function. Thus, the delegation of authority in the field under study differs from, for example, a notary, where, by transferring certain powers to notaries, the state reserves part of the authority to perform notarial actions.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.