Innovations and Analogies in the Legal Regulation of Withdrawal from a Limited Liability Company under Current Russian Law

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Given that the innovations studied in the article are aimed at transforming the business climate in Russia, the section "Results" or "Conclusion" is missing an indication of the effectiveness and attractiveness of the updated mechanism of withdrawal from LLC from foreign investors' viewpoint.
2. The author should supplement the section "Materials and methods" with information about the sources of empirical data for the study (court decisions) and indicate their application scope. 
3. Regarding the third paragraph of the section "Materials and methods" (The peculiarity of the source base of this work ...): The basis for this statement can be seen in the fact that the article does address the issue of the degree of freedom of choice by LLC participants as to the scope of the notary's actions in the withdrawal procedure. However, there is no specific evidence of the author's interaction with the notaries in the article.   

Author Response

I express my gratitude to the reviewer for a careful analysis of the article. The comments are constructive; their practicing helped to improve the article.

The “Conclusion” section provides a genuine conclusion from the study that recent legislative updates have increased the attractiveness of the Russian LLC construction for foreign investors.

In the “Materials and methods” section, paragraph 3 has been clarified: the empirical basis of the study is reflected (judicial acts of the highest courts of Russia, as well as decisions of lower courts on specific disputes); the mention of empirical data obtained by the author in interaction with notaries is excluded, since such data are not recorded in writing.

Reviewer 2 Report

The analysis is correct.
It is original.
It is adequately documented.
The conclusions are adequate.
I think it is suitable for presentation to the scientific community.

Author Response

I am very grateful to the reviewer for the positive review of my article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Writing style is obscure and difficult to follow.  Unable to discern the central problem or argument.  

Methodology unclear: states it is doctrinal but has no suggestions for legal reform or change to practice (at least not clearly discernible).  The analogical mode of reasoning not apparent.

Should use more subheadings to structure the flow of argument.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am grateful for your attentive analysis of my article.

Your comments and suggestions are constructive; the revision of the text according to them helped improve the article.

 

1. The writing style has been corrected as much as possible, thus enabling to highlight the central issues and main arguments.
2. In confirmation of the doctrinal nature of the study, the suggestions for legal reform and improvement of the practice of its application were introduced in the “Results” section.
3. In the research the emphasis is made rather on the analysis of the effectiveness of applying the analogy method in the practice of filling legal gaps than on the use of the analogy method in scientific research. Therefore, due to the non-obviousness of the analogous way of reasoning (as indicated by the reviewer), reference to the analogy as a research method is excluded from the abstract and the “Materials and methods” section.
4. In accordance with the reviewer’s recommendation, three additional subheadings are introduced to structure the text of the “Discussion” section.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article illustrates the innovations and analogies in the legal regulation of withdrawal from Limited Liability Company. The reviewer believes that the topic is interesting and thus deserves analysis and close investigation. However, the paper has too many problems.

1. The title does not indicate that the article concerns the Russian regulation.
2. The structure of the article must be improved. 
3. The Author should refer to the official names of the legal acts, i.e. Federal Law No. 14-FZ of February 8, 1998 On Limited Liability Companies.
4. There are many acronyms that need to be explained before being used, i.e. RF, LLC, CCRF, FL, FAC. 
5. There are too long sentences, i.e. l. 105-11; 118-127. 
6. There are far too many English language problems. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am grateful for your attentive analysis of my article.

Your comments and suggestions are constructive; the revision of the text according to them helped improve the article.

1. The title of the article is supplemented with an indication that the article deals with the issues of withdrawal from the LLC under the legislation of Russia.
2. In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, additional subheadings are introduced in the structure of the article.
3. At the first mention in the text of the article, the names of legal acts are given in their full official form. Further, to avoid unreasonable enlargement of the text, previously agreed abbreviations are used.
4. The abbreviations used are disclosed at their first mention in the text of the article (the designation FL is not an abbreviation, but part of the official number of legal acts).
5. Too long sentences are split.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

n/a

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Author, 

You have successfully implemented suggestions and thus you have improved your paper.

Good luck with your future publications!