Executive Termination and Golden Parachutes in Russia: Legal Regulation and Practice

 

January 25, 2026

BRACE ©

 

The expression "golden parachute" entered Russian corporate legal practice from foreign experience. However, Russian legislation does not formally contain this term.

In Russia, a golden parachute is traditionally understood as a large monetary compensation paid to a top manager upon early termination. For example, as a result of a change in company ownership, a former executive receives a form of "insurance" when changing jobs.

In this article, we examine how Russian legislation regulates such payments, their size, and relevant judicial practice.

What is a "Golden Parachute"?

In a general sense, a "golden parachute" can be defined as a large monetary payment made upon termination of employment.

Senior executives may receive such a bonus in cases such as company mergers, liquidations, takeovers by a larger organization, or a change in ownership. Termination may occur by the employee's own desire, by mutual agreement of the parties, or through a workforce reduction.

In most cases, the golden parachute is paid in monetary form; however, it may be provided in the form of shares, insurance and pension contributions, or any other forms defined by the employment contract. The primary goal of a golden parachute is to create the most comfortable conditions for termination, reduce the conflict of the situation, and prevent undesirable actions against the company.

Employee Rights Guarantees and the "Golden Parachute"

Pursuant to Article 278 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (the "Labor Code"), in the event of termination of an employment contract with an organization's head due to a decision by the authorized body of the legal entity, the owner of the organization's property, or an authorized person (body) to terminate the employment contract (paragraph 2 of part 1 of Article 278 of the Labor Code), in the absence of culpable actions (omissions) by the head, they shall be paid compensation in an amount determined by the employment contract, but not lower than 3-fold average monthly earnings.

It should be noted that the sum of 3-fold average monthly earnings is the minimum threshold. At the same time, the maximum size can reach significantly larger proportions. The amount of compensation may be determined taking into account the time remaining until the expiration of the employment contract, the amounts (remuneration) that the terminated person could have received by continuing to work as the organization's head, additional expenses that they may be forced to incur as a result of early termination of the contract, etc.

In Case No. 33-5866/2025, considered by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court, the plaintiff, who was in an employment relationship with a joint-stock company as General Director, filed a lawsuit to recover compensation upon termination of the employment contract and compensation for violation of payment deadlines due to the worker upon dismissal. In resolving the dispute and refusing to satisfy the claim regarding the recovery of compensation upon termination, the courts proceeded from the evidence of circumstances indicating culpable actions by the plaintiff as the head of the legal entity, which exempts the employer from paying him compensation. The courts reached the reasonable conclusion that "when the employer dismissed the plaintiff, labor legislation norms were not violated, considering that the failure to pay him compensation in accordance with Article 279 of the Labor Code resulted from the plaintiff's commission of culpable actions during the exercise of his powers as director". [1]

The consolidation in Article 278 of the Labor Code of the owner's power to terminate the employment contract with an organization's head, who manages their property, without justifying the need for such a decision, is aimed at the realization and protection of the owner's rights to possess, use, and dispose of their property. This includes determining methods for managing it individually or jointly with other persons and freely using their property for entrepreneurial and other economic activities not prohibited by law. Providing the owner with the right to decide on the early termination of the employment contract with the organization's head assumes, in turn, providing the latter with adequate legal guarantees of protection from negative consequences that may arise for them as a result of job loss, from possible arbitrariness and discrimination. [2]

Please note that from an analysis of the provisions of Articles 278 and 279 of the Labor Code, it can be concluded that compensation is paid to the organization's head specifically in the event of early termination of the employment contract. Furthermore:

• Upon expiration of the term for which the head was elected, as provided by the company's constituent documents, compensation is not paid;
• Upon dismissal of the director by their own desire, the golden parachute also should not be paid, since payments under Article 279 of the Labor Code are compensatory in nature for an unmotivated, non-culpable dismissal at the employer's request. If the director resigns themselves, the conditions for such payments do not arise. [3]

In Case No. 2-594/2025, considered by the Murmansk Regional Court, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against a joint-stock company for the recovery of an additional payment, interest for violation of the payment deadline, and compensation for moral harm. In support of the claims, they indicated that based on an employment contract, they (the plaintiff) work for the defendant as Chief Engineer. In December 2023, an employment contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, according to which they were assigned the duties of General Director. In August 2024, the parties signed an agreement to terminate the employment contract with the Acting General Director. The plaintiff was relieved of the duties of General Director due to a transfer to the previous position of Chief Engineer by agreement of the parties. At the time of signing the agreement, the parties confirmed they had no claims against each other. The courts indicated that "the labor relations between the plaintiff and the defendant were not terminated upon his relief from the duties of General Director and return to the performance of duties as Chief Engineer, whereas the additional payment in the amount of three average earnings is provided only in the event of dismissal from the organization (with the exception of dismissal for culpable actions), as it is a guarantee payment designed to mitigate the negative consequences of dismissal associated with job loss and loss of regular income. Considering that the plaintiff was not dismissed but continued to perform labor duties as Chief Engineer, the negative consequences that may arise as a result of job loss did not occur for him". Furthermore, "labor legislation does not provide for compensation payments either upon relief from concurrent positions or upon completion of a temporary transfer. The fact that the employer executed a fixed-term employment contract with the plaintiff for the position of Acting General Director, without terminating labor relations for the position of Chief Engineer, and with the employee's consent assigned the duties of General Director to him by additional agreements to this employment contract, does not entitle the employee in the situation under consideration to receive an additional payment, since labor relations with the plaintiff did not actually terminate, meaning the necessary condition for producing the disputed payment did not arise". [4]

Size of Golden Parachutes

As already noted, the maximum size of severance pay is not directly regulated. Legislation does not establish the procedure for its calculation or criteria for justification, nor does it establish criteria determining the excessiveness (extravagance) of the size. For example, by a decision of the board of directors, the president of one Russian company was paid a one-time compensation in the amount of 200,880,000 rubles in connection with the termination of his employment contract. [5] In considering the case regarding the claim to challenge this decision, the court reached the following conclusions:

• The calculation of the specific amount of one-time compensation in connection with the termination of labor relations with the president is not assigned to the competence of the board of directors by the Federal Law On Joint-Stock Companies, the company's charter, or any of its internal documents;
• The contested decision was documented for the purpose of lending legitimacy to the payment in the amount of 200,880,000 rubles, while it was unmotivated both from the perspective of using variable components concerning bonuses in the calculation and from the perspective of the purpose of the compensatory payment as such;
• The company's board of directors should have proceeded from the purpose of compensation as an adequate guarantee of protecting the former head from the negative consequences resulting from job loss. Furthermore, the board of directors bore the duty to maintain a balance of interests between, on one hand, the head, whose termination was not related to their unlawful behavior, and, on the other hand, the shareholders, whose investment interests are violated by the payment of a clearly overstated and unjustified compensation;
• To establish such a high payment, which does not follow from the literal meaning of the employment contract terms, the board of directors should have presented weightier justifications and disclosed information to the shareholders regarding the reasons for its appointment, ensuring transparency of calculations and clearly explaining the applied approaches and principles. [6]

When making a management decision to establish the amount of severance pay, it is also necessary to consider the legal position set forth in Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 21 dated June 2, 2015, On Certain Issues Arising for Courts in Applying Legislation Regulating the Labor of the Organization's Head and Members of the Organization's Collegial Executive Body. Thus, when making a decision on the amount of compensation, one should take into account the duration of the dismissed person's work as the organization's head, the time remaining until the expiration of the employment contract, the transformation of a fixed-term employment contract into a contract concluded for an indefinite term, the amount of sums (remuneration) that the terminated person could have received by continuing to work as the organization's head, and additional expenses they may incur as a result of termination of the employment contract.

When considering lawsuits by organization's heads and members of collegial executive bodies regarding the recovery of severance pay, compensations, and (or) other payments in connection with the termination of an employment contract, the court must verify compliance with the requirements of legislation and other regulatory legal acts when including conditions on "golden parachute" payments in the employment contract. In the event of establishing a violation by the employment contract terms of the requirements of legislation and other regulatory legal acts, including the general legal principle of the inadmissibility of abuse of right, the legitimate interests of the organization, other employees, and other persons (for example, the owner of the organization's property), the court has the right to refuse to satisfy the claim for recovery of payments from the employer in connection with termination or to reduce their size. [7]

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, when considering a case on the recovery of compensation for early termination of an employment contract and compensation for moral harm, indicated that "the court of appeal, as a result of an erroneous interpretation of the substantive law norms regulating the procedure and conditions for paying compensation to an organization's head in the event of a decision to terminate the employment contract with them in the absence of culpable actions, reached an unlawful conclusion regarding the plaintiff's right to receive monetary compensation in the amount indicated in the copy of the employment contract presented by the plaintiff, which is an amount exceeding the three-fold size of her average monthly earnings, i.e., the compensation size guaranteed by Article 279 of the Labor Code. The court did not take into account that by any acts of the company, in particular, the charter, the payment of any compensation to the director, including in the case of early termination, was not provided for. Local regulatory acts determining the procedure and conditions for the remuneration of the company's workers, including the director, other than as provided for by the Labor Code norms, were also not adopted by the company. The presence in the employment contract of a condition for the payment of compensation to the organization's head in an amount differing from that provided for by the Labor Code in the event of early termination of labor relations with them does not mean that the court should not, when a dispute arises over the payment of such compensation and its size, evaluate the indicated condition of the employment contract from the perspective of compliance with labor legislation norms and the legitimate interests of the organization and its employees". [8]

Restrictions on Payment of Severance Pay and Monetary Compensations in State-Owned Companies

Federal Law No. 56-FZ dated April 2, 2014, On Amendments to the Labor Code of the Russian Federation Regarding the Introduction of Restrictions on the Size of Severance Pay, Compensations, and Other Payments in Connection with the Termination of Labor Relations for Certain Categories of Workers, which entered into force on April 13, 2014, introduced Article 349.3 of the Labor Code, which limits the size of severance pay, compensations, and other payments in connection with the termination of employment contracts for certain categories of workers.

The provisions of the indicated article apply to the following categories of workers:

• Heads, their deputies, chief accountants, and members of collegial executive bodies who have concluded employment contracts in state corporations, state companies, as well as business entities in which more than 50% of the shares (interests) in the authorized capital are in state or municipal ownership;
• Heads, their deputies, and chief accountants of state extra-budgetary funds, territorial funds of mandatory medical insurance, state or municipal institutions, and state or municipal unitary enterprises.

In the event of payment to these workers of compensations provided for by Article 181 (termination of an employment contract with an organization's head, their deputies, and chief accountant in connection with a change in the owner of the organization's property) or Article 279 (early termination of an employment contract with an organization's head in the absence of culpable actions (omissions)) of the Labor Code, these compensations are paid in the amount of 3-fold average monthly earnings. Agreements on the termination of employment contracts may not contain conditions on the payment to the worker of severance pay, compensation, and (or) on the appointment to the worker of any other payments in any form.

Upon termination of employment contracts on any grounds established by the Labor Code or other federal laws, the aggregate size of severance pay, compensations, and other payments in any form paid to these workers may not exceed 3-fold average monthly earnings of these workers, in the determination of which the size of the following payments is not taken into account:

• The wages due to the worker;
• Average earnings maintained in cases of sending the worker on a business trip, sending the worker for professional training or additional professional education with a leave of absence from work, and in other cases in which, in accordance with labor legislation and other acts containing labor law norms, average earnings are maintained for the worker;
• Reimbursement of expenses related to business trips and expenses when moving to work in another locality;
• Monetary compensation for all unused vacations;
• Average monthly earnings for the period of employment and (or) one-time compensation.

It is worth noting that "golden parachutes" may be paid not only to the organization's head. In accordance with Article 281 of the Labor Code, by federal laws and the organization's constituent documents, the specifics of labor regulation established by this chapter for the organization's head may apply to members of the organization's collegial executive body who have concluded an employment contract.

The Bank of Russia, in the Corporate Governance Code approved by Letter No. 06-52/2463 dated April 10, 2014, indicates that the level of remuneration provided by the company to board members, executive bodies, and other key management personnel should create sufficient motivation for their effective work, allowing the company to attract and retain competent and qualified specialists. At the same time, the company should avoid a level of remuneration greater than necessary, as well as an unjustifiably large gap between the remuneration levels of the indicated persons and the company's workers. The amount of compensation, i.e., the golden parachute, paid by the company in the event of early termination of powers of executive bodies or key management personnel at the company's initiative and in the absence of bad faith actions on their part, should not exceed 2-fold the size of the fixed part of annual remuneration. To carry out higher payments, weightier justifications should be presented, the corresponding decision should be approved at a board of directors meeting, and information on the reasons for appointing such payments should be disclosed.

It should be kept in mind that the Corporate Governance Code is recommendatory in nature and is not subject to mandatory application.

Judicial Disputes over the Payment of Severance Pay

Disputes over the payment of severance pay in a large amount upon termination by agreement of the parties may also arise between the parties to the employment contract. The employer refuses to pay the golden parachute if the initiative to terminate the employment contract came from the worker.

Judicial practice in such situations is on the side of employers. Thus, a condition was provided in an employment contract according to which, upon termination of the employment contract, the company had to pay the worker severance pay in the amount of 12 wages. The worker resigned by their own desire, and the company refused to pay them severance pay. [9]

In Case No. A56-13195/2020, considered by the Commercial Court of the Northwestern District, the bankruptcy trustee of a joint-stock company filed a lawsuit in the commercial court to declare payments made by the debtor in favor of a worker — the Deputy General Director—and the agreement on the termination of the employment contract as invalid transactions. The bankruptcy trustee, referring to the fact that the indicated payments were excessive and were made after the introduction of supervision over the company, filed the application under consideration with the court. The courts noted that "the agreement on the termination of the employment contract was concluded already during the company's bankruptcy procedure (the introduction of the supervision procedure against it) and provided for the payment of severance pay significantly exceeding similar payments established for other workers". In the opinion of the Commercial Court of the Northwestern District, the courts reached the reasonable conclusion that the agreement providing for the payment of severance pay by the company in an amount exceeding the sums guaranteed by labor legislation, and the corresponding payments, "are subject to being declared invalid transactions based on Article 61.3 of the Law on Bankruptcy, as they are aimed at changing the priority of satisfying the worker's claims compared to the priority established by Article 134 of the Law on Bankruptcy". [10]

In Case No. A40-141897/2014, a joint-stock company filed a lawsuit in the commercial court for the recovery of losses in the amount of 6 million rubles caused to it as a result of the defendant's unlawful actions. The plaintiff believed that the General Director's actions in paying 3.6 million rubles to a worker who had worked in the organization for 1 month in connection with early termination and 6 million rubles as a bonus based on the results of the year before the end of the year do not meet the principle of compensation adequacy and infringe upon the rights of other company workers. The courts established that the employment contract stipulated the "right to receive remuneration based on work results for the year and the employer's corresponding duty. At the same time, the application of the formula consolidated in this paragraph upon the worker's dismissal before the end of the year is impossible, as it is applied based on data obtained after the expiration of the reporting year". The courts of the first and appellate instances concluded that "the amount of remuneration based on the year's results was paid in full accordance with the terms of his employment contract, and the plaintiff failed to present evidence of the existence of local acts establishing procedures for the payment of severance pay (remuneration, compensations) paid upon termination of the employment contract by agreement of the parties before the expiration of the reporting year". [11]

Taxation of Compensations Paid as Golden Parachutes

Severance pay issued by the employer upon termination of the employment contract, provided for by employment contracts and (or) separate agreements of the employment contract parties, including agreements on the termination of the employment contract, as well as collective bargaining agreements, agreements, and local regulatory acts containing labor law norms, are fully taken into account as part of labor costs subject to compliance with the requirements established by Article 252 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (the "Tax Code").

Recall that expenses are recognized as justified and documented costs incurred (borne) by the taxpayer. Justified expenses are understood as economically justified costs, the valuation of which is expressed in monetary form. Documented expenses are understood as costs confirmed by documents executed in accordance with legislation, or documents executed in accordance with business customs applied in the foreign state on whose territory the corresponding expenses were made, and (or) documents indirectly confirming the expenses made (including a customs declaration, a business trip order, travel documents, a report on work performed in accordance with the contract). Expenses are recognized as any costs provided they are made to carry out activities aimed at generating income.

Labor costs are recognized as an expense monthly based on the amount of accrued labor costs (paragraph 4 of Article 272 of the Tax Code).

At the same time, in terms of confirming the justification of expenses, the Tax Code does not regulate the list of documents or activities confirming the production nature (paragraph 3 of the Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 03-04-06/27591 dated May 5, 2017).

When carrying out tax control measures, the tax service may refuse to accept expenses for the payment of an excessively overstated severance pay, indicating that they are not economically justified.

Thus, in Case No. A40-7941/2015, the company took into account the amounts of compensations paid to terminated workers on the basis of agreements on the termination of employment contracts when calculating corporate profit tax as part of expenses. The economic justification for the costs of paying compensations to terminated workers, from the company's perspective, consisted in production optimization and cost minimization. The tax authority reached the conclusion that the company's inclusion of such costs in expenses was unlawful, as these payments are not directly related to the workers' performance of their labor duties within the framework of labor relations, and current legislation does not provide for such a payment in the event of termination of the employment contract by agreement of the parties; therefore, the expenses incurred by the company related to the implementation of the indicated payments are not aimed at generating company income and cannot be recognized as economically justified costs. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in sending the case for a new consideration, indicated that "to recognize payments made by the taxpayer to workers upon termination of employment contracts by agreement of the parties as economically justified expenses, it is sufficient to establish the achievement of the goal — the actual dismissal of a specific worker — as well as compliance with the balance of interests of the worker and employer, in which the payments are aimed at resolving a possible conflict situation upon dismissal and do not serve exclusively the purpose of the terminated worker's personal enrichment. With a significant size of such payments, their clear incommensurability with the usual size of severance pay that a terminated worker is entitled to expect in accordance with Article 178 of the Labor Code, the duration of their labor seniority and the labor contribution made by them, as well as other circumstances characterizing the worker's labor activity, the burden of disclosing evidence justifying the nature of the payments made and their economic justification lies with the taxpayer". [12]

The size of payments upon dismissal by agreement of the parties may not fully coincide with the size of payments provided for by labor legislation, since its size may also be influenced by the circumstance that such a payment represents, among other things, a kind of fee for the worker's consent to waive the employment contract. At the same time, the size of such a fee is not defined by legislation but is established by the agreement of the parties. The tax authority has the right to question the economic justification of the expenses for the payment in the presence of evidence indicating the absence of a business economic goal for the taxpayer in dismissing the worker, without intruding into the assessment of the expediency of the decisions made. [13]

In a similar Case No. A40-87651/2017, in additionally charging profit tax, the tax authority proceeded from the fact that the disputed payments are a means of personal enrichment for workers for the period after their dismissal and are not related to the organization's activities, nor are they aimed at generating profit. Severance pay is aimed at protecting the worker from temporary loss of income until employment. If the size of payments significantly exceeds the amount of usual severance pay, such payments are considered personal provision for workers. The goal of such payments should be the resolution of possible conflict situations upon dismissal that may threaten the organization with damage. In the disputed case, the organization was unable to explain exactly how the size of severance pay was calculated, nor to justify their size. [14]

Compensations upon dismissal are not subject to insurance contributions if they do not exceed 3-fold average monthly earnings (6-fold average monthly earnings for workers dismissed from organizations located in the Far North and equivalent localities). Sums exceeding the indicated limits must be subject to insurance contributions in the generally established procedure (Article 422 of the Tax Code).

According to the general rule, severance pay is not subject to PIT (NDFL) only in the part not exceeding 3-fold (for workers of organizations located in the Far North and equivalent localities, 6-fold) average monthly earnings, regardless of how the employment contract was terminated, including by agreement of the parties (Article 217 of the Tax Code). The indicated provisions apply to the income of any company employees regardless of the position held. [15] Sums exceeding the indicated limits must be subject to PIT in the generally established procedure.

Employer Liability and Risks

According to the general rule, in accordance with Article 140 of the Labor Code, upon termination of an employment contract, the payment of all sums due to the worker from the employer is carried out on the day of the worker's dismissal. If the worker did not work on the day of dismissal, then the corresponding sums must be paid no later than the next day after the dismissed worker presents a demand for settlement.

For violations related to payments to the organization's head (General Director) upon dismissal, including a "golden parachute", the following risks are possible, in particular:

• Administrative liability under part 6, 7 of Article 5.27 of the CAO RF (if the actions do not contain a criminally punishable offense in accordance with Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code) — for non-payment or late payment to the head of sums due upon dismissal. In such a case, it will be necessary to pay these sums with interest in accordance with the procedure of Article 236 of the Labor Code;
• Compensation for moral harm and legal costs (if such claims are present). For example, this is possible in the event of failure to pay the organization's head compensation upon dismissal under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Article 278 of the Labor Code, if such dismissal is not related to their culpable actions (omissions).

Part 6 of Article 5.27 of the CAO RF establishes that non-payment or incomplete payment within the established deadline of payments carried out within the framework of labor relations, if these actions do not contain a criminally punishable offense, entails a warning or the imposition of an administrative fine on officials in the amount of 10,000 to 20,000 rubles, and on legal entities, from 30,000 to 50,000 rubles.

In accordance with part 7 of Article 5.27 of the CAO RF, the commission of an administrative offense provided for by part 6 by a person previously subjected to administrative punishment for a similar offense, if these actions do not contain a criminally punishable offense, entails the imposition of an administrative fine on officials in the amount of 20,000 to 30,000 rubles or disqualification for a term of 1 to 3 years, and on legal entities, from 50,000 to 100,000 rubles.

In the event of the employer's violation of the established deadline for the payment of wages, vacation pay, payments upon dismissal, and (or) other payments due to the worker, the employer is obliged to pay them with interest (monetary compensation) in an amount not lower than 1/150 of the Bank of Russia key rate currently in force from the amounts accrued but not paid on time for each day of delay starting from the day following the day on which these sums should have been paid upon their timely accrual to the day of actual settlement inclusive (Article 236 of the Labor Code).

Criminal liability may also arise for failure to pay a "golden parachute". At the same time, we note that criminal punishment in such a case may arise for partial non-payment for over 3 months, committed out of mercenary or other personal interest by the organization's head, an employer who is a natural person, or the head of a branch, representative office, or other separate structural subdivision of the organization (Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Punishment is provided in the form of a fine in an amount up to 120,000 rubles or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period up to 1 year, or deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term up to 1 year, or compulsory labor for a term up to 2 years, or deprivation of liberty for a term up to 1 year.

We note that judicial practice regarding administrative or criminal liability for non-payment or late payment of golden parachutes is absent, but such risks cannot be fully ruled out; therefore, it is recommended to carry out all due payments timely and in full.

Thus, the payment of a golden parachute is an opportunity for a company to smooth over the rough edges and the conflict of the situation that arises upon the dismissal of the management tier or large positions in the course of reorganization, liquidation, or takeover, as well as by a decision of the board of directors or the company owner. The maximum size of such compensations is established for state-owned and state-controlled organizations, in which the size of the golden parachute will be 3 average monthly earnings. Private companies may establish the size of compensation and the procedure for its payments in any order; the maximum size of payment in this case is not regulated in any way. Nevertheless, established judicial practice requires justifying the paid size of the golden parachute.

______________________

References

[1] Appellate Ruling of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dated April 24, 2025 in Case No. 33-5866/2025 (UID 66RS0001-01-2024-007268-97).

[2] Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 3-P dated March 15, 2005, On the Case of Verifying the Constitutionality of the Provisions of Clause 2 of Article 278 and Article 279 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation and the Second Paragraph of Clause 4 of Article 69 of the Federal Law On Joint-Stock Companies....

[3] Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 539-O-O dated April 21, 2011.

[4] Appellate Ruling of the Murmansk Regional Court dated May 14, 2025 No. 33-1421/2025 (UID 51RS0002-01-2024-005724-07).

[5] Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 30, 2015 in Case No. A56-31942/2013.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 21 dated June 2, 2015, On Certain Issues Arising for Courts in the Application of Legislation Regulating the Labor of the Head of an Organization and Members of the Collegial Executive Body of an Organization.

[8] Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 8, 2019 No. 81-KG18-27.

[9] Appellate Ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court dated November 6, 2018 No. 33-22048/2018.

[10] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District dated November 21, 2023 No. F07-16119/2023 in Case No. A56-13195/2020.

[11] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated February 20, 2017 No. F05-19957/2015 in Case No. A40-141897/14.

[12] Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 28, 2017 in Case No. A40-7941/2015.

[13] Letter of the FAS Russia No. SA-4-7/7288@ dated April 17, 2017.

[14] Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 27, 2018 in Case No. A40-87651/2017.

[15] Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 03-04-06/55739 dated August 30, 2017.