Corporate bodies: who performs management function?.

This article approaches an issue of corporate governance from the narrow perspective of legal significance of governing function. The discussion was initiated by the inconsistency in regulations of former Lithuanian Law on Corporations and Lithuanian Civil Code concerning the governing bodies of legal entities. The subject – matter of this article is structural analysis of governing function. The objectives of this article were to reveal the main inconsistencies of Lithuanian legal approach towards governing function of legal entities and propose the criteria to analyze them. Whereas this is an interdisciplinary topic, a comparative view of governing function is taken from economic and legal perspectives. From economical analysis of the notion the inference is drawn, that this would be substantially precarious to reduce governing function to the managing body of the legal entity. Contrarily, legal analysis infers, that governing function has to be interpreted narrowly. This article shows that governing function is properly characterized as applying in narrower circumstances than the language of statutory regulations suggests. Specifically, governing function is performed and fiduciary duties arise only when one party delegates open–ended control over her property to another party. Extending governing function beyond this specific situation decreases the effectiveness of owners’ governance rights and dilutes true governing bodies’ legal and extralegal incentives. The article analyzes how this view operates in a legal form of corporation. Those whom the law classifies as governing bodies must carry on their dealings with beneficiaries at a level high above ordinary commercial standards.Straipsnyje pateikiama išsami valdymo funkcijos analizė, nes teisinis reguliavimas valdymo funkcijai suteikia didelę reikšmę. Straipsnį sudaro trys dalys. Pirmojoje straipsnio dalyje nagrinėjama juridinio asmens organo paskirtis – atstovauti juridiniam asmeniui ex officio, nors pats „atstovavimo“ terminas šiame kontekste vartojamas dviprasmiškai. Kadangi atstovavimo instituto skiriamasis bruožas yra atstovo fiduciarinė padėtis atstovaujamojo atžvilgiu, kyla klausimas: kiek tai būdinga dalyvių susirinkimui kaip juridinio asmens organui. Prieinama prie išvados, kad akcininkų susirinkimas, kaip bendrovės organas, atstovauja bendrovei pagal savo kompetenciją. Antrojoje straipsnio dalyje apibrėžiami kriterijai, kuriais remiantis atskiriami valdymo organai nuo kitų bendrovės organų. Pabrėžiama, kad valdymo funkcijos turinio nei Lietuvos Respublikos civilinis kodeksas (toliau – CK), nei lietuviškoji jurisprudencija neatskleidžia. Todėl trečiojoje straipsnio dalyje per valdymo ekonomi-nio turinio santykį su teisiniu reguliavimu analizę atsakoma į klausimą, ar valdymas turi kokią nors teisinę reikšmę, ir prieinama prie išvados, kad valdymo funkciją, priklausomai nuo bendrovės kapitalo nuosavybės struktūros, gali įgyvendinti nebūtinai valdymo organas