Does the creditors' meeting have the legal competence to declare company bankruptcy intentional during extrajudicial bankruptcy?

Magistro darbo tema – „Ar nagrinėjant bankroto bylą neteismine tvarka kreditorių susirinkimas turi teisinę kompetenciją pripažinti įmonės bankrotą tyčiniu?“ Šio darbo tikslas – išanalizuoti kreditorių susirinkimo kompetenciją neteisminio bankroto metu sprendžiant tyčinio bankroto klausimą. Darbą sudaro trys dalys. Pirmoje dalyje nagrinėjama neteisminio bankroto proceso raida ir tikslai. Šioje dalyje taip pat aptariama ir šio proceso inicijavimo sąlygos, privalumai bei trūkumai. Analizuojama mokslinė doktrina susijusi su neteisminiu nemokumo procesu. Antroje dalyje aptariamas tyčinio bankroto institutas. Šioje dalyje yra analizuojami tyčinio bankroto tikslai bei teisinės pasekmės pripažinus įmonės bankrotą tyčiniu. Taip pat pateikiami teismų praktikoje susiformavę tyčinio bankroto nustatymo kriterijai vertinant, ar bankrotas buvo sukeltas tyčiniais juridinio asmens valdymo organo nario veiksmais. Be to, aptariama, kaip užsienio šalyse apibrėžiamas bei naudojamas šis institutas. Trečioje dalyje yra nagrinėjamos teisinės priemonės, kuriomis suinteresuoti asmenys gali ginti pažeistas teises neteisminio bankroto proceso metu, nepripažįstant bankroto tyčiniu. Praktikoje pripažįstama, kad vien tai, jog bankrotas nebuvo pripažintas tyčiniu, dar neužkerta proceso šalių galimybių ginti pažeistas teises kitomis teisinėmis priemonėmis, kai yra manoma, kad juridinio asmens valdymo organo narys elgėsi neteisėtai vadovaudamas įmonei. Kreditorių teisės nemokumo procese yra ginamos per nemokumo administratorių, bet tam tikrais atvejais ir patys kreditoriai gali ginti pažeistas teises, jei nemokumo administratorius neatlieka savo pareigų. Atlikus tyrimą šiame darbe pasitvirtino kelta hipotezė, kad kreditorių susirinkimas neturi teisinės kompetencijos pripažinti įmonės bankrotą tyčinių bankroto procese, kuris yra vykdomas ne teismo tvarka.The topic of the master's thesis is “Does the creditors’ meeting have the legal competence to declare bankruptcy intentional during the extrajudicial bankruptcy process?“. The purpose of this work is to analyze the competence of the creditors' meeting in the extrajudicial bankruptcy process, determining whether the bankruptcy was intentional. The work consists of three parts. In the first section, the development of extrajudicial bankruptcy proceedings and the conditions for initiating these proceedings are examined, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of this process. During the extrajudicial bankruptcy process, the creditors' meeting decides all issues related to insolvency proceedings, which normally during in-court bankruptcy is decided by the court. In 2020 in the Republic of Lithuania Enterprise Bankruptcy Law has been replaced by the Law of Insolvency of Enterprises, which raises even more questions as to whether creditors have the competence to declare bankruptcy intentional and whether it meets the objectives of bankruptcy and ensures an effective insolvency process. It should be noted that the new law encourages the parties to use extrajudicial bankruptcy procedures, which leads to the more common use of this process, but at the same time, there are still some problematic aspects of creditors meeting competence during the extrajudicial bankruptcy process. It is worth mentioning that the extrajudicial bankruptcy process is much faster and more economical than judicial bankruptcy, and during extrajudicial bankruptcy, creditors can choose an insolvency administrator, on whose competence depends the quality of the insolvency proceedings. In the second part, the institute of intentional bankruptcy itself is discussed. This section analyzes the criteria for determining intentional bankruptcy and the legal consequences of declaring bankruptcy as intentional. It is also discussed how this process is defined and used in foreign countries. In this section, the criteria for determining intentional bankruptcy are also analyzed, which requires detailed investigation of whether the bankruptcy was caused by the intentional actions of a member of the management body of a legal person. The legal consequences of declaring bankruptcy intentional are also discussed in this section. This work argues that the recognition of intentional bankruptcy has extremely significant legal consequences for a person found guilty of intentional bankruptcy. This person has both legal and non-legal consequences. Therefore, such a given right to creditors to declare bankruptcy intentional issues risks distorting the institution of intentional bankruptcy itself as regards to creditors' interest in declaring bankruptcy intentional. Because when bankruptcy is declared intentional, all creditors acquire the right to bring direct actions against the head of the bankrupt company for damages. Therefore, it is considered that the right granted to the creditors' meeting to declare bankruptcy intentional distorts the goals of the institute of intentional bankruptcy itself, as creditors have an interest in declaring bankruptcy intentional only due to the possibility to direct financial claims to the company's manager. Also, such a regulation poses a risk and discourages individuals from choosing extrajudicial bankruptcy procedures. In addition, it is also analyzed whether the creditors' meeting can decide to impose a sanction on the head of a company when they are found guilty of intentional bankruptcy. The third part examines other possible legal remedies for defending the rights of creditors in extrajudicial bankruptcy proceedings without declaring the bankruptcy intentional. In practice, it is recognized that even though bankruptcy has not been declared intentional that does not mean that the parties can’t defend rights that were infringed by a member of the legal entity's management body, which is considered to have acted unfairly, limiting creditors' ability to recover as much financially. Creditors' rights in insolvency proceedings are protected through the insolvency administrator, but in certain cases, the creditors themselves can defend the infringed rights if the insolvency administrator fails to perform his or her duties. Therefore, it can be concluded that the creditors' meeting cannot be considered competent to deal with the intentional bankruptcy of the company during the extrajudicial bankruptcy process. Firstly, to determine whether bankruptcy has been caused by the deliberate actions of the management body of a legal person, a thorough examination of the causes of the insolvency must be carried out, which requires both legal and economic knowledge. Secondly, the recognition of bankruptcy has very significant legal consequences, so it is important that this issue is dealt with by a competent authority that can ensure the protection of the rights and interests of the parties to the proceedings. Third, interested parties who have suffered damage as a result of mismanagement of a legal person can defend the infringed rights, even though bankruptcy is not declared intentional. The insolvency administrator and creditors in bankruptcy proceedings that are conducted out of court still have legal possibilities to initiate actions caused by intentional bankruptcy, i. y. claim damages, challenge illegal transactions entered by the company, and initiate a pre-trial investigation. So, in conclusion, the issue of intentional bankruptcy should be dealt with exclusively by a judicial authority in order to resolve the issue of intentional bankruptcy right. The research in this work confirmed the hypothesis that the creditors' meeting has no legal competence to declare bankruptcy intentional in the extrajudicial bankruptcy procedures.Teisės fakulteta