Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/122738
Type of publication: master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law (S001)
Author(s): Zaikaitė, Jolanta
Title: Ar nemokios beturtės įmonės bankroto administravimo išlaidų kompensavimo sureguliavimas atitinka kreditorių interesų gynybos pricipą?
Other Title: Does the asset-less company's bankruptcy expenses compensation conform to the creditors' protection regime?
Extent: 45 p.
Date: 18-Jun-2009
Keywords: nemokumas;beturtė įmonė;bankrotas;administravimo išlaidos;kreditoriai;insolvency;asset-less company;bankruptcy;administration expenses;creditors
Abstract: Rinkos ekonomikos sąlygomis bankrotas yra normalus reiškinys, įmonės, nesugebančios išsilaikyti konkurencinėje aplinkoje, bankrutuoja ir taip pasitraukia iš rinkos. Pasitaiko, kad žlugusios įmonės nebeturi jokio turto, ar jo nebepakanka bankroto administravimo išlaidoms padengti, tuo tarpu pagal Lietuvos Respublikos įmonių bankroto įstatymą, tokioms nemokioms beturtėms įmonėms teismas atsisako kelti bankroto bylą. Kita vertus bankroto įstatymas numato specialią supaprastinto bankroto procedūrą beturtėms įmonėms administruoti, tačiau nesant garantuotam bankroto administravimo išlaidų finansavimui, bankroto byla įmonei vis tiek nėra keliama, todėl ir supaprastina bankroto procedūra nėra taikoma. Deja, beturtės įmonės statusas tampa būdu išvengti akylaus įmonės veiklos patikrinimo – bankroto procedūrų vykdymo. Tinkamas bankroto administravimo išlaidų kompensavimo sureguliavimas svarbus užtikrinant kreditorių interesų gynybos principą, nes nuoseklus ir išsamus bankroto proceso vykdymas garantuoja atidų žlugusių įmonių veiklos teisėtumo patikrinimą. Bankroto procedūrų metu yra galimybė peržiūrėti bendrovės sandorius ir teismine tvarka nuginčyti tuos, kurie pažeidžia kreditorių interesus, taip pat gali būti aptinkamos aplinkybės leidžiančios nustatyti įmonei tyčinį bankrotą. Dėl minėtų priežasčių yra reikalingas šių išlaidų kompensavimo sureguliavimas, garantuojantis kreditoriams jų teisėtų interesų įgyvendinimą. Darbe, atskleidžiant bankroto procedūrų svarbą beturtėms įmonėms, konstatuojamas jų administravimo išlaidų kompensavimo būtinumas, siekiant apginti ne tik viešąjį, bet ir kreditorių teisėtus interesus. Galiausiai darytina išvada, kad dabartinis beturčių įmonių bankroto administravimo išlaidų kompensavimo sureguliavimas neatitinka kreditorių interesų gynybos principo.
Many debtors that would satisfy the criteria for commencement of bankruptcy proceedings are never formally liquidated, either because creditors are reluctant to initiate proceedings where it appears that the debtor has no, or insufficient assets to fund bankruptcy administration expenses. There are a number of reasons, in particular of a public interest nature, for devising a mechanism to enable the administration of a debtor with apparently few or no assets. Where a bankruptcy law does not provide for exploratory investigations of asset-less companies, it does little to ensure the observance of fair commercial conduct. Assets can be moved out of companies with no fear of investigation or the application of avoidance provisions or other civil or criminal provisions of the law. A mechanism for bankruptcy administration will assist in overcoming any perception that such abuse is tolerated and may provide a return for creditors where antecedent transactions can be avoided. Lithuania Enterprise bankruptcy law forbids the court to start bankruptcy procedure to asset-less companies, though there is a special procedure for asset-less companies – a simplified bankruptcy, which makes process faster and cheaper. However in the absence of the compensation no bankruptcy case will be taken, consequently no simplified bankruptcy process can be taken too. The project is discussing the problems of asset-less companies bankruptcy costs compensation in Lithuania, including regulation in different laws, which has established the mechanism for asset-less companies’ investigation in bankruptcy case. In doing so, this project provides a general description of insolvent company, setting forth the basic elements of asset-less company. Further, the bankruptcy administration expenses composition, including administrator remuneration and its’ compensation manner is broadly discussed. It includes a comprehensive analysis of the compensation ways in Lithuania and other laws. Finally it discuss creditors interests protection during asset-less company’s bankruptcy. Analysis limits: article considers only about limited liability companies. Bankruptcy conception encompasses all procedures in bankruptcy process including liquidation after bankrupt. Project does not discuss situation when company goes to bankruptcy process after unsuccessful restructuring, and it does not specify creditor-employee interests. The conclusions that can be extracted from the analyses made in this project are the following: The hypothesis that the asset-less company’s bankruptcy expenses compensation does not conform to the creditors’ protection regime is proved. 1. Insolvency – this is the state where the company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due and, depending on the level of insolvency and future perspectives it results in restructuring or bankruptcy process. In the first case the company’s insolvency is temporary, in the second – the company is in the absolute insolvency when its liabilities exceed in half the value of its assets. 2. Definition of asset-less company is not used in the Enterprise bankruptcy law, it is defined as such a company when it has no assets or its assets are insufficient to cover bankruptcy process expenses. According to the defined maximum sum which is needed to cover the asset-less company’s bankruptcy expenses it is concluded that asset-less company’s asset can’t exceed sum of 10 thousand litas. 3. Other laws define the asset-less company such as: 1) which has no assets or which assets are mortgaged to an amount equal to or in excess of those assets; 2) which assets are insufficient to cover the expenses of bankruptcy proceedings. In the second case the law can limit the value of assets when company can’t be considering as asset-less. 4. Lithuanian Supreme court has decided that secured creditor must participate in compensation of company bankruptcy expenses in every case. If company has no assets or it is insufficient to cover bankruptcy expenses then mortgaged assets can be used for administration expenses compensation. Company which assets are mortgaged to an amount equal to or in excess of those assets can’t be define as asset-less company in Lithuania. 5. The secured creditors interests which are effective and enforceable under law other than bankruptcy law, it should be recognize in bankruptcy cases as effective and enforceable. Mortgaged assets participation in full amount to asset-less company’s bankruptcy costs compensation infringes with creditors legitimate expectations and interests. 6. After other laws examination it was found that asset-less companies’ bankruptcy administration costs compensation mechanism must be defined because of few reasons: 1) failed companies need to be dissolved; 2) failed companies need to be investigated for wrongful trading. There is public interest in bankruptcy cases which encourage governments to establish special funds for asset-less companies’ administration. These expenses also can be voluntary discharged by creditors and this compensation manner should have an alternative. 7. In Lithuania there is a general rule that bankruptcy case can’t be taken for asset-less companies, excluding the cases when the simplified bankruptcy procedure can be performed: 1) then person who filled a petition in bankruptcy agrees to pay defined sum of money to court’s account; 2) during bankruptcy case it came out that company’s assets are insufficient to cover bankruptcy administration costs. In the second case there is no manner for compensation at all; article author thinks law should let creditors to discharge these costs as in the first case. 8. Creditors have no motivation to compensate asset-less company’s bankruptcy administration costs because of these reasons: 1) reluctance to incur additional expenses; 2) they rights in participation and control on process during simplified bankruptcy case are restricted. By this reason law should establish another manner to compensate asset-less company’s bankruptcy administration expenses. 9. The realization of proposal made by Tripartite board to Lithuanian government to establish special fund (new or using already existing Guaranty fund) for asset-less companies bankruptcy administration, would guaranty and provide efficient compensation for effective asset-less companies administration. 10. The intentional bankruptcy investigation – the manner to protect creditors interests, needs additional exploratory examination of asset-less companies’ affairs and costs additional expenses, therefore law must guaranty administration compensation to reduce perfunctory investigation and to stop misconduct in the lead up to a formal bankruptcy to go undiscovered or without sanction. 11. Then person who filed a petition (mostly creditors) in bankruptcy refuses to pay bankruptcy expenses, the court rejects to start the bankruptcy proceedings, consequently it is impossible to initiate the intentional bankruptcy.
Internet: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/122738
Affiliation(s): Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas
Appears in Collections:VDU, ASU ir LEU iki / until 2018

Files in This Item:
Show full item record
Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats
Export to Other Non-XML Formats


CORE Recommender

Page view(s)

8
checked on Jun 6, 2021

Download(s)

4
checked on Jun 6, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.