Use this url to cite ETD: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/119668
Options
Ar juridinio asmens bankroto proceso stadija riboja kreditoriaus teises kreiptis dėl bankrutuojančios įmonės skolų priteisimo tiesiogiai iš akcininkų?
Field of Science
Teisė / Law (S001)
Type of publication
type::text::thesis::master thesis
Title
Ar juridinio asmens bankroto proceso stadija riboja kreditoriaus teises kreiptis dėl bankrutuojančios įmonės skolų priteisimo tiesiogiai iš akcininkų?
Other Title
Does the stage of bankruptcy proceedings of a legal person limit the rights of a creditor to apply for a bankrupt company's debts award directly from Its shareholders?
Author
Znamenskis, Andrejus |
Advisor
Extent
34 p.
Date Issued
2015-06-04
Abstract
Lietuvos Respublikos ir užsienio šalių teisės doktrinose yra pripažįstama, kad tam tikrais atvejais juridinio asmens ribotos atsakomybės institutas yra netaikomas. Taip atsitinka, kai atsakomybė nustatoma juridinio asmens įstatuose, imperatyviai įtvirtinama įstatymuose arba kai dėl atitinkamo juridinio asmens dalyvio inter alia akcininko nesąžiningų veiksmų žalą patiria pats juridinis asmuo arba jo kreditoriai. Netaikant arba panaikinus ribotą juridinio asmens dalyvio atsakomybę, jis subsidiariai atsako pagal juridinio asmens prisiimtas prievoles savo turtu. Darbo metu buvo pastebėta, kad akcininkų nesąžiningi veiksmai, dėl kuriųjuridinis asmuo arba jo kreditoriai patiria žalą, yra atliekami dalyvaujant juridinio asmens valdyme. Akcininkai, priklausomai nuo tam tikrų ypatumų (pvz., akcijų kiekio), gali daryti lemiamą įtaką priimant sprendimus juridinio asmens valdyme. Akcininkų sprendimai, priimti veikiant nesąžiningai ir sukeliantys žalą, sąlygoja subsidiarią atsakomybę savo turtu. Nesąžiningų veiksmų pasekmė dažniausiai yra juridinio asmens nemokumas ir tolesnis bankrotas, todėl ir žalos priteisimas dažniausiai yra vykdomas bankroto proceso metu. Išnagrinėjus atvejus, kai žala kyla dėl akcininkų nesąžiningų veiksmų, pastebėta, kad dažniausiai žala yra netiesioginio pobūdžio. Taip yra todėl, kad dėl akcininkų veiksmų pirmiausia nukenčia juridinis asmuo, netekdamas galimybės atsiskaityti pagal prisiimtus įsipareigojimus, o kreditorius savo ruožtu nukenčia dėl to, kad negali patenkinti savo turtinio intereso. Nustatyti tiesioginio materialinio santykio tarp kreditoriaus ir kaltojo asmens nėra galimybės, todėl kreditoriai negali reikšti tiesioginių reikalavimų kaltajam asmeniui. Netiesioginio pažeidimo atveju kreditorių teisių gynybai yra numatoma galimybė skolininko vardu pareikšti reikalavimus kaltiems dėl žalos atsiradimo asmenims. Išnagrinėjus netiesiogiai įgyvendinamos gynybos atvejus, pastebėta, kad nepriklausomai nuo to, kokio masto žalą patiria kreditorius dėl akcininkų ir kitų juridinio asmens dalyvių nesąžiningų veiksmų, jo interesas visvien bus ginamas bendrąja nustatyta tvarka. Tai reiškia, kad juridinio asmens bankroto atveju pavienių kreditorių interesai yra varžomi vardan bendro visų kreditorių interesų patenkinimo.
There are a wide variety of legal entities, that are recognized under Lithuanian law. Probably, the most commonly used legal entities in Lithuania, created for the purpose of doing business, are limited liability companies and private limited liability companies. Perhaps, the reason behind this choice is, that these legal entities limit the liability of its members and allow to reach the most favorable balance between liability and gained profits. However, sometimes limited liability is being abused and that results in damages suffered by the company itself and by its creditors. In many cases, damages suffered can result in the insolvency of the company and its subsequent bankruptcy. This brings a reasonable question, can the person whose actions caused the damages, be liable for the debts of the company? As it turns out, the answer is yes, the person whose actions caused the damages can be liable for the debts of the company, but certain conditions need to be met. An exception to the general rule, that shareholders and members of the governing body of the company are not liable for the company's debts, can be found in legal doctrines of different countries. For example, in the US law terminology the institute that grants an exception from the aforementioned rule is called "piercing of the corporate veil". Although the title of this institute may vary from country to country, its meaning remains more or less the same. Shareholders can be held liable for the company's debts, if certain conditions are met. The first and probably the most important condition, is that shareholders must act in bad faith. Second condition, is that there must be a direct causal link between shareholders acting in bad faith and the company's inability to meet its obligations to its creditors. Not all shareholders can be liable for their actions. It depends on the amount of granted access to the company's management. Thus, if a person is considered to be a major shareholder and has a greater impact on the company's management, his liability for his actions whilst managing the company is equally greater. And vice versa, if a person has little or none influence in managing the company, his liability remains within the amount of shares held. The burden of proof usually goes to the creditor and it is his duty to prove, that shareholder was acting in bad faith. In most cases, actions in bad faith are actions, when shareholders have neglected corporate formalities, such as corporate meetings and required filings, failure to submit a court statement for the company's bankruptcy, or, more often, where they have ignored the legal separateness of the corporation and treated the corporation as an extension of themselves. The liability of shareholders is a liability in tort. That is due to the fact, that usually there are no contractual obligations between the creditors and the shareholders of a company. Damages for shareholders' actions in bad faith are primarily suffered by the company itself as it loses the ability to meet its obligations to its creditors. And the company's inability to meet its obligations, in turn, affect creditors held interests, causing indirect damages. Thus, the damages suffered by the creditor because of the shareholders' actions in bad faith are damages in tort. Creditor is one of the main participants of the bankruptcy process, because this process is mainly carried out on his behalf. Some would argue that, if there were no creditors the bankruptcy process wouldn't be possible at all. In Lithuania, enterprise bankruptcy process is regulated by a special enterprise bankruptcy law. This law, among other things, regulates ways for the creditors to defend his injured rights. Considering the fact, that damages suffered by the creditors because of shareholders acting in bad faith are indirect, creditors can't bring a direct action against the shareholders. But enterprise bankruptcy law provides creditors a right to bring an indirect action on behalf of the debtor. There are two main actions that can be applied for protection of creditors' rights. Paulian action and oblique action. Paulian action is used to challenge transactions made by a debtor, where the debtor was not bound to make them and where they violate the rights of the creditor. Oblique action is used by a creditor to exercise the rights of the debtor by bringing an action in the debtor’s name in the event where the debtor fails to implement these rights himself, or refuses to exercise them to the prejudice of the creditor’s interests. These actions have certain particularities which occur when the actions are satisfied. Recovered property is set-off into the property of the debtor and it is used to benefit all creditors in accordance with the sequence of and procedure for satisfaction of the creditors' claims stated in the enterprise bankruptcy law. This is done to ensure the principle of equality of the creditors. At the same time it becomes clear, that the interests of individual creditors' are being sacrificed for the sake of overall satisfaction of the interests of all the creditors. Lithuanian law does not provide the creditors with a right to bring a direct action against the shareholders during the enterprise bankruptcy process. Allowing this action when the creditor has a certain and exigible right to claim against shareholder of a bankrupt enterprise, can make the process of defending the creditors' interests quicker and more efficient, because this way legal falseness, that occurs while using oblique action, is avoided.
Language
Lietuvių / Lithuanian (lt)
Defended
Taip / Yes
Access Rights
Atviroji prieiga / Open Access