Does the Competence and Responsibility of the Company’s Director Apply to the Liquidator of the Company?“

Įmonei iškėlus bankroto bylą, įmonės vadovo funkcijas perima bankroto administratorius, todėl svarstytina, ar atliekant įmonės vadovui priskirtas funkcijas, bankroto administratoriui taikoma įmonės vadovo kompetencija ir atsakomybė? Kadangi įstatymuose ir kituose teisės aktuose įtvirtinta akcininkų susirinkimui suteikta teisė kontroliuoti įmonės vadovo veiksmus, o kreditorių susirinkimą - bankroto administratoriaus veiksmus, todėl svarstytina, ar įstatymai suteikia vienodą teisę šiems įmonės atstovams savarankiškai priimti verslo sprendimus įmonės ūkinėje komercinėje veikloje bei disponuojant įmonės turtu? Palyginę įmonės vadovo ir bankroto administratoriaus funkcijas nustatėme, kad kai kurios iš jų sutampa. Tačiau bankroto administratorius turi daugiau įpareigojimų, nustatytų įstatymuose, kadangi jis turi atstovauti pačios įmonės ir jos kreditorių interesus ir ginti juos nuo įmonės vadovų neteisėtų veiksmų, kuriais padaroma žalą tiek įmonei, tiek kreditoriams. Kadangi įmonės vadovui įstatymai suteikia teisę vykdyti įmonės ūkinę komercinę veiklą, bankroto administratoriui ši teisė taip pat suteikta, svarstytinas klausimas, ar šiuos verslo sprendimus jie gali priimti savarankiškai. Ar akcininkų pritarimas vadovo veiksmams ir kreditorių pritarimas bankroto administratoriaus veiksmams šalina jų atsakomybę už priimtus sprendimus? Įvertinus teisės aktus ir teismų praktiką, padaryta išvada, kad bankrutuojančios įmonės ūkinės komercinės veiklos sprendimus priima įmonės kreditorių susirinkimas, o šių sprendimų vykdymas deleguotas bankroto administratoriui. Tačiau teismų praktikoje įtvirtinta bankroto administratoriaus teisė ginčyti įmonės kreditorių sprendimų teisėtumą teisme, jei šie sprendimai prieštarauja įmonės interesams. Įstatymuose ir kituose teisės aktuose visuotiniam akcininkų susirinkimui suteikta teisė kontroliuoti įmonės vadovo veiksmus, be jo sutikimo kai kuriais atvejais įmonės vadovas negali priimti įmonės veiklai reikalingų sprendimų, tačiau darytina išvada, kad akcininkų pritarimas šiems veiksmams nešalina įmonės vadovo atsakomybės už pareigos įmonei nevykdymą ar netinkamą vykdymą. Apibendrinant galime daryti išvadą, kad įmonės bankroto administratoriui iš dalies netaikoma įmonės vadovo kompetencija ir atsakomybė. Teismų praktika bankroto administratoriui praplečia kompetencijos ribas, o atsakomybę už šiais veiksmais padarytą žalą dažnai šalina kreditorių susirinkimui įstatymuose įtvirtinta pareiga kontroliuoti jo sprendimus.The company‘s procedure of liquidation initiates in two ways: voluntary liquidation and compulsory liquidation. Whereas the functions of liquidator in the company’s compulsory liquidation process are set out in Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, the study of this thesis is the competence and responsibility of a bankruptcy administrator when the company is in the process of compulsory liquidation. National Audit Office stated in the Report (24th November 2014) that during 2009-2014 period of the first quarter the creditors of bankrupt companies did not received income about 8.4 billion Lt and the government budget lost 1.5 billion Lt. The companies had identified from 48 to 67 percent proportion in assets that were approved by creditors’ requirements in the beginning of finished bankruptcy process during 2009-2013 period; in the end of bankruptcy process the index of fulfilment of the requirements was rather low percent – from 10,3 to 16. The main reason for such low index has identified in the Report is subparagraph 3 of paragraph 1 of 33 Article of Enterprise Bankruptcy Law: “the procedure for the sale of other assets as well as immovable property unsold at two auctions shall be established by the meeting of creditors. Upon a decision of the meeting of creditors, these assets may be sold in the manner specified in subparagraph 2 of this paragraph.” Whereas the immovable property unsold at two auctions shall be established by the meeting of creditors, it means that there is no rule to sell the property at auction only. Consequently the question is arising: does the bankruptcy administrator, who is representing the company and its creditors’ interests, have a position not to carry out this decision of the meeting of creditors? Does the agreement of the meeting of creditors for such actions eliminate the bankruptcy administrator’s liability for tortious act if the bankruptcy administrator has decided to carry out the decision of the meeting of creditors? Whereas the functions of the company’s director after the initiation of the bankruptcy take over the bankruptcy administrator the new question is arising. Does the bankruptcy administrator have a right autonomously to administer company’s property? Does the bankruptcy administrator have the right to sell the company’s property like the same right has company’s director? Does the liability for tortious act of the company’s director apply to the bankruptcy administrator? If the company becomes a subject of bankruptcy proceedings, the functions of director are overtaken by the bankruptcy administrator. Therefore, the question is raised, does the bankruptcy administrator bear the competence and responsibility of company’s director, while performing the director’s functions. As in accordance with the rules established in laws and other legislations, the shareholders meeting is entitled to exercise control over the actions of the company’s director, while the meeting of creditors is empowered to exercise control over the actions of a bankruptcy administrator. Thus, the question here is whether the laws empower these representatives of the company to make independent business decisions regarding the economic and commercial activities of the company as well as dispose the company’s assets? After comparing the functions of the company’s director to the functions of the bankruptcy administrator we came up with the conclusion that some of these coincide. However, the bankruptcy administrator has more obligations prescribed under laws, as he represents the interests of the company itself as well as the interests of the company’s creditors. Therefore, a bankruptcy administrator has to defend them against the unlawful acts of the company’s management which lead to damage and harm both to the company and creditors. Since the director of the company is authorized by laws to practice economic and commercial activity of the company, bankruptcy administrator has the same right. The question here is whether they can adopt these business decisions by themselves. Does the shareholders’ approval for the director’s actions, correspondingly to the creditors’ approval for the actions of the bankruptcy administrator relieve them of responsibility for the decisions taken? In accordance with legislations and case law, it is concluded that the meeting of creditors itself takes the decisions on economic and commercial activities of a company in bankruptcy, while the enforcement of these decisions is delegated to the bankruptcy administrator. However, case law enshrines the bankruptcy administrator’s right to argue the legitimacy of decision taken by company’s creditors in court, if these decisions are contrary to the company’s interests. Laws and other legislations impose a duty of the general shareholder meeting to control the actions of company’s director. Indeed, in some cases director cannot adopt the decision concerning the activities of the company without the approval of the shareholders meeting. However, it may be concluded that the approval of the shareholders does not absolve director from responsibility neither for the dereliction of duty to the company, nor for inadequate enforcement of this duty. Summing up, we may come to the conclusions that although in accordance with laws the bankruptcy administrator has the duty to overtake the functions of the company’s management body, yet, the provision established in case law suggests that the competence and liability of the company’s director does not apply to the bankruptcy administrator.Teisės fakultetasVytauto Didžiojo universiteta