Задания для внеаудиторной работы

Обобщение судебной практики

1. Обобщите судебную практику по сделкам, связанным с превышением полномочий органов управления организации:

а) предусмотренных законом;

б) предусмотренных уставом организации.

Задания по составлению документов

1. Подготовьте «Положение о юридической службе акционерного общества».

2. Напишите раздел «Обязанности» должностной инструкции юрисконсульта коммерческой организации.

3. Подготовьте претензию от имени акционерного общества в связи с поставкой ему некачественной продукции.

4. Подготовьте исковое заявление о возмещении обществу с ограниченной ответственностью ущерба, понесенного по вине энергоснабжающей организации, прекратившей подачу электроэнергии в связи с аварией на подстанции.

5. Подготовьте текст доверенности на представление юрисконсультом интересов организации в судебных и иных органах.

6. Подготовьте приказ о начале ежегодной договорной кампании.

Темы рефератов

1. Цели правового обеспечения предпринимательской деятельности.

2. Способы правового обеспечения предпринимательской деятельности.

3. Правовой статус адвоката.

4. Функции юридического департамента коммерческой организации.

5. Юрист корпорации: права, обязанности, ответственность.

6. Управление правовыми рисками и compliance как функция юридического подразделения коммерческой организации.

7. Номенклатура дел как составная часть организации делопроизводства коммерческой организации.

Темы эссе

1. Предназначение (цели) правовой работы в сфере предпринимательства.

2. Миссия юриста в обеспечении успеха предпринимательской деятельности.

Работа с иностранными источниками

Прочитайте отрывок[143] и ответьте на вопросы.

«Corporate Compliance Programs.

General Principle: Compliance programs are established by corporate management to prevent and detect misconduct and to ensure that corporate activities are conducted in accordance with applicable criminal and civil laws, regulations, and rules. The Department[144]encourages such corporate self-policing, including voluntary disclosures to the government of any problems that a corporation discovers on its own. However, the existence of a compliance program is not sufficient, in and of itself, to justify not charging a corporation for criminal misconduct undertaken by its officers, directors, employees, or agents. In addition, the nature of some crimes, e.g., antitrust violations, may be such that national law enforcement policies mandate prosecutions of corporations notwithstanding the existence of a compliance program.

Comment: The existence of a corporate compliance program, even one that specifically prohibited the very conduct in question, does not absolve the corporation from criminal liability…. While the Department recognizes that no compliance program can ever prevent all criminal activity by a corporation’s employees, the critical factors in evaluating any program are whether the program is adequately designed for maximum effectiveness in preventing and detecting wrongdoing by employees and whether corporate management is enforcing the program or is tacitly encouraging or pressuring employees to engage in misconduct to achieve business objectives. The Department has no formulaic requirements regarding corporate compliance programs. The fundamental questions any prosecutor should ask are: Is the corporation’s compliance program well designed? Is the program being applied earnestly and in good faith? Does the corporation’s compliance program work? In answering these questions, the prosecutor should consider the comprehensiveness of the compliance program; the extent and pervasiveness of the criminal misconduct; the number and level of the corporate employees involved; the seriousness, duration, and frequency of the misconduct; and any remedial actions taken by the corporation, including, for example, disciplinary action against past violators uncovered by the prior compliance program, and revisions to corporate compliance programs in light of lessons learned. Prosecutors should also consider the promptness of any disclosure of wrongdoing to the government. In evaluating compliance programs, prosecutors may consider whether the corporation has established corporate governance mechanisms that can effectively detect and prevent misconduct. For example, do the corporation’s directors exercise independent review over proposed corporate actions rather than unquestioningly ratifying officers’ recommendations; are internal audit functions conducted at a level sufficient to ensure their independence and accuracy; and have the directors established an information and reporting system in the organization reasonably designed to provide management and directors with timely and accurate information sufficient to allow them to reach an informed decision regarding the organization’s compliance with the law.

Prosecutors should therefore attempt to determine whether a corporation’s compliance program is merely a «paper program» or whether it was designed, implemented, reviewed, and revised, as appropriate, in an effective manner. In addition, prosecutors should determine whether the corporation has provided for a staff sufficient to audit, document, analyze, and utilize the results of the corporation’s compliance efforts. Prosecutors also should determine whether the corporation’s employees are adequately informed about the compliance program and are convinced of the corporation’s commitment to it. This will enable the prosecutor to make an informed decision as to whether the corporation has adopted and implemented a truly effective compliance program that, when consistent with other federal law enforcement policies, may result in a decision to charge only the corporation’s employees and agents or to mitigate charges or sanctions against the corporation…»

Насколько обоснованно и эффективно учитывать комплайенс-программы при привлечении корпораций к ответственности?