The purpose of the article is to find mechanisms that would guarantee the protection of investors’ rights in the process of housing construction. Methodology. In the process of conducting the research, the following methods were used: theoretical generalization, grouping method, methods of dynamic, statistical and comparative analysis, comparative method, method of structural and logical analysis, calculation and analytical method. Research results. The works of scientists who studied the problem of risks associated with investing in construction were analyzed. A comparative study of investor security in France and Germany was conducted. The legislation of Ukraine on this issue was examined. Practical implementation. It was determined that in order to prevent the misuse of funds in housing construction in foreign countries, there is a mechanism for attracting funds by opening escrow accounts and transferring funds from them to the developer. Value/originality. It was proven that the use of escrow accounts in house-building can become an effective mechanism for protecting the rights of investors in Ukraine.

The article is devoted to the study of the essence of the security of property rights of economic entities. The article emphasizes that a business entity has the right to be the owner of any property that is not prohibited by law. Property is a necessary component of economic activity. Therefore, ensuring the legal rights of economic entities to property is an important issue. The article analyzes the current legislation of Ukraine on the protection of property rights. It is noted that the Constitution of Ukraine establishes the duty of the state to ensure the protection of the rights of all subjects of ownership and management, and the social orientation of the economy. All subjects of property rights are equal before the law. The article states that depending on the types of property that may be owned by the business entity, the current legislation defines various means of protecting the right of ownership. In particular, in the article, using the example of land ownership relations, various means of protection are given, taking into account the provisions of the current legislation of Ukraine. The owner of a plot of land or a land user may demand the elimination of any violations of his rights to land, even if these violations are not related to the deprivation of the right to own a plot of land, and compensation for damages. The main ways of protecting land rights are to file a negative lawsuit in court, to declare the agreement regarding the land plot invalid, to invalidate the decisions of executive authorities or local self-government bodies that violate the rights of land plot owners and land users. Also, a separate type of protection of land ownership should be considered the restoration of the condition of the land plot that existed before the violation of rights, and the prevention of actions that violate rights or create a danger of violation of rights. The conclusions emphasize the need for further improvement of the mechanism of applying the norms of the current legislation of Ukraine in practice to ensure reliable security of property rights.

The article presents a comparative legal analysis of the laws of Ukraine, France and Germany regarding the regulation of housingconstruction conditions.According to French law, the buyer of real estate under construction can be any individual aged at least 18 years and with fullcapacity.There are no special requirements for real estate developers under construction. However, such developers must meet the generalrequirements for property developers. For example, they must obtain a construction permit or a preliminary declaration, if necessary,for a new construction project. The building permit is issued by either the mayor or the prefect. The building permit is valid for threeyears, during which the developer must begin construction. However, the relevant authorities may extend the period (period of time)for the start of such construction. After the start of construction work can not be suspended for more than a yearLegislation stipulates that the buyer can purchase real estate, which is under construction, only under contractual mechanisms.In particular, the purchase of unfinished construction projects usually includes two stages:– the first stage – the conclusion of a preliminary (reserve) agreement between the buyer and the developer (“Preliminary contract”);–the second stage – the conclusion of the final contract of sale (“VEFA Agreement”) between the buyer and the developer.The French legislation describes in detail the procedure and amount of financing the construction of housing by investors (buyers).German law regulates housing construction in a slightly different way, however, as in French law, there is also a provision on thegradual financing of housing construction.In Ukrainian legislation today there is no provision for the need for gradual financing of housing by investors (buyers). This situationin practice often harms the rights of investors.The use of escrow accounts in the construction of investors can improve the situation of investors in Ukraine, which in fact, byanalogy with the legislation of France and Germany, will allow the gradual financing of housing construction.

The aim of the article is to reveal the legal nature of corporate conflicts and ways to overcome them in Ukraine and the United States. The subject of the study is corporate conflicts caused by the corporate relations that arise between the owners of corporate rights, as well as the relationship between the owners of corporate rights and management bodies of the company. Methodology. The study is based on general scientific and specialscientific methods and techniques of scientific knowledge. The logical semantic method enabled to determine the content of the concepts of “corporate conflict” and “greenmail”. The comparative legal method enabled to compare the doctrinal approaches to this issue. The same method enabled to analyse US law regarding the subject matter. The normative dogmatic method enabled to interpret the content of legal regulations of domestic and foreign legislation that regulate the issue of corporate conflicts and ways to overcome them. The system-structural method enabled to analyse objective and subjective causes of corporate conflicts. Methods of analysis and synthesis enabled to distinguish features of corporate blackmail as the cause of corporate conflicts. The method of legal modelling enabled to develop proposals regarding greenmail prevention in Ukraine. Practical implications. Studies on the issue of greenmail in the US helped to develop recommendations for prevention of greenmail in Ukraine, as well as to identify issues requiring further consideration and research. Relevance/originality. The concepts of “corporate conflict” and “greenmail” are defined. The objective and subjective causes of the occurrence of corporate conflicts, the reasons for their occurrence, as well as the subjective component of the parties to the corporate conflict are analysed. The absence of the legal definition of the concept of greenmail and the effective mechanism of its prevention is stated, therefore, appropriate recommendations to prevent its occurrence are formulated.

The article presents a comparative legal analysis of the laws of Ukraine and the United States regarding the regulation of corporate relations and corporate conflicts. Corporate conflict can be defined as disagreements (disputes) between shareholders (investors) and managers in connection with the violation of shareholders' rights that lead or may lead to claims against the company controlling the shareholder or executives regarding the decisions taken by them, early termination of powers. management, significant changes in the composition of shareholders. Even when examining the nature of the relationship between objective and subjective causes of conflicts, the following features may be noted: the clear distribution of objective and subjective causes of conflicts, and even more so their opposition, is obviously unlawful. Any objective reason plays a role in the emergence of a specific conflict situation, including due to the action of subjective factors. As a rule, corporate conflicts in joint stock companies are the property rights of the shares of the company and the rights that these securities give (participation in management, participation in the distribution of profits of the company, etc.). The interests of shareholders are aimed at generating income from the company's activities. Earning income can be realized in two ways - paying dividends and increasing the share price. In the process of addressing these issues in practice, there may be abuse of corporate rights, including greenmail. The main attention is paid to the issues of preventing greenmail, which, although not an offense, can cause losses to the business entity and its participants. The term "greenmail" in the literature is interpreted as a procedure for the acquisition of a large number of shares of a company in order to create a threat to its hostile takeover in order to resell these shares at an overpriced price to the same company. The following main features of corporate greenmail can be identified: - it is a form of intervention in the activities of a joint-stock company; -  based on the fact that the person owns a certain number of shares, which does not allow to make a significant impact on the process of managing a joint-stock company; - the intervention is aimed at hindering the operational activity of a joint-stock company and, as a consequence, creating certain negative consequences for the company and (or) its shareholders, including in their financial and property sphere; - the purpose of such conduct is to sell its block of shares at an inflated price to the controlling shareholder or to the company itself or to obtain another property grant; - the actions of corporate greenmailers are formally legitimate, but may be qualified as abuse of law. In the United States, greenmail is interpreted differently in individual states, but what is common is that greenmail is an abuse of rights and may cause harm to the company and its members. There is no definition of greenmail at the legislative level in Ukraine. This is due to the fact that in Ukraine the phenomenon of greenmail due to the lack of development of corporate relations in comparison with the United States has not yet become widespread, however, it should not be ruled out the significant spread of greenmail in the future. The conclusions of the analysis include recommendations to prevent greenmail.