Obveznosti direktorja ob nastanku insolventnosti družbe in njegova odškodninska odgovornost stečajnim upnikom

Kodba, Anita

| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

First page > Show document

Show document

Title:	Obveznosti direktorja ob nastanku insolventnosti družbe in njegova odškodninska odgovornost stečajnim upnikom
Authors:	ID Kodba, Anita (Author) ID Prelič, Saša (Mentor) More about this mentor... ID Podgorelec, Peter (Comentor)
Files:	MAG_Kodba_Anita_2016.pdf (1,70 MB) MD5: 1F9926BFC17961F9B94566821249E7D7
Language:	Slovenian
Work type:	Master's thesis/paper
Organization:	PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:	Namen magistrskega dela je celovita obravnava obveznosti direktorja ob nastanku insolventnosti družbe in njegove odškodninske odgovornosti stečajnim upnikom. Direktor je družbi odškodninsko odgovoren za nastalo škodo, če krši svoje poslovne obveznosti iz rednega poslovanja družbe, kot jih določata 1. odst. 236. čl. ZGD-1 in 28. čl. ZFPPIPP. Z začetkom stečajnega postopka procesno legitimacijo za vložitev odškodninske tožbe zoper (takrat že) bivšega direktorja v imenu družbe pridobi stečajni upravitelj in stečajni upniki. Ne glede na to, kdo vloži odškodninski zahtevek, je materialni upravičenec družba kot stečajni dolžnik. To pomeni, da se odškodnina izterja v dobro stečajne mase, iz katere se poplačujejo terjatve stečajnih upnikov. Uveljavljanje odškodninskih zahtevkov v korporacijskem in insolvenčnem pravu je zahtevno, saj so dejanska in pravna stanja praviloma zelo kompleksna. Tožnik nosi dokazno breme protipravnega ravnanja direktorja, nastanka škode in vzročne zveze med protipravnim ravnanjem in nastankom škode. Direktor pa se svoje odgovornosti lahko razbremeni, če dokaže, da je ravnal s potrebno profesionalno skrbnostjo ali da je bil vzrok za protipravno ravnanje zunaj njegove poslovne sfere (npr. zakonit sklep skupščine). Sklicuje pa se lahko tudi na, v teoriji in sodni praksi, vse bolj uveljavljeno pravilo podjetniške presoje. Z nastankom insolventnosti družbe za direktorja nastanejo še dodatne obveznosti enakega obravnavanja upnikov ter dolžnost pravočasnega analiziranja vzrokov za nastanek insolventnosti in predlaganja sanacijskih ukrepov, v skladu z določbami 34. do 39. čl. ZFPPIPP. Če direktor te obveznosti prekrši, nastane na podlagi 42. čl. ZFPPIPP še posebna, lex specialis, neposredna, neposlovna, odškodninska odgovornost stečajnim upnikom. Direktor je stečajnim upnikom odgovoren za škodo, ki so jo imeli, ker v stečajnem postopku niso dosegli polnega plačila svojih terjatev. Za to odškodninsko odgovornost zakon predpisuje posebno procesno predpostavko, in sicer začetek stečajnega postopka. Ker je namen obravnavanih zakonskih določb zagotoviti učinkovito varstvo interesov upnikov ob nastanku insolventnosti družbe, je upravitelj oz. stečajni upniki maksimalno razbremenjen dokaznega bremena. Zakon namreč postavlja domnevo vzročne zveze in višine škode. Upravitelj oz. stečajni upniki morajo dokazati samo začetek stečajnega postopka ter protipravnost ravnanj direktorja po nastanku insolventnosti družbe, to je kršitev določb 34.–39. čl. ZFPPIPP. Ekskulpacijski razlogi v tem primeru so strožji kot v primeru poslovne odškodninske odgovornosti direktorja družbi, pri tem pa se direktor ne more sklicevati na privilegij podjetniške presoje, ki se nanaša zgolj na poslovne odločitve ne pa tudi na pravno-vezane odločitve. Teorija in praksa ugotavljata, da določba o odškodninski odgovornosti direktorja iz 42. čl. ZFPPIPP v praksi ni zaživela. Skozi delo sem poskušala poiskati "luknje v zakonu", skozi katere se bivši direktorji stečajnih dolžnikov tako spretno izmikajo svoji odškodninski odgovornosti, a sem na koncu ugotovila, da zakonodaja ni pomanjkljiva in ne potrebuje nikakršnih bistvenih sprememb. Razlog, da obravnavana določba ni zaživela (torej, da upravitelji oz. stečajni upniki ne vlagajo odškodninskih zahtevkov zoper bivše direktorje stečajnega dolžnika), je po mojem mnenju v njeni neekonomičnosti (visokih pravdnih stroških in negotovi izterljivosti odškodnine).
Keywords:	insolventnost, obveznosti direktorja, stečaj, odškodninska odgovornost
Place of publishing:	Maribor
Year of publishing:	2016
PID:	20.500.12556/DKUM-61137
COBISS.SI-ID:	5244971
NUK URN:	URN:SI:UM:DK:ZCEVNN0Z
Publication date in DKUM:	10.12.2016
Views:	3345
Downloads:	449
Metadata:
Categories:	PF
:	Copy citation

Average score:	(0 votes)
Your score:	Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:

Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:	English
Title:	Directores duties in the vicinity of insolvency
Abstract:	The purpose of this thesis is a thorough assessment of the duties of a director at the moment a company is declared insolvent and their liabilities towards bankruptcy creditors. A director is accountable to a payment of compensation for any damages incurred due to a breach of their business liabilities within regular operations of the company, as laid down in Article 236 paragraph 1 of the Companies Act and Article 28 of the Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings and Compulsory Winding-up Act. With the initiation of bankruptcy, the capacity ad processum, for bringing an action for damages against (at that point already) former director, is awarded to a liquidator and bankruptcy creditors. Company itself, being the debtor represents a beneficiary regardless of which party files for damages. Consequently, this allows a recovery of damages suffered and is considered and added towards insolvency assets and used for paying claims of the bankruptcy creditors. Due to high complexity of the state of fact and law, exercising a legal claim in corporate and insolvency law proves to be very difficult. Claimant bears the burden of proof resulting from an unlawful director's conduct, damages incurred and a casual link between unlawful conduct and damages incurred. A director can be relieved of their liability, if they are able to prove they performed with necessary diligence, or that the reasons behind their unlawful conduct were out of their professional jurisdiction (e.g. legal assembly decision). Furthermore, this may be relied upon the business judgement rule, in both theory and case law. Company's insolvency results in additional liabilities put on a director, making them accountable for equal treatment of creditors, along with the duty to perform timely analysis of the cause that lead to insolvency, whilst also proposing appropriate corrective measures in accordance with Articles 33 to 39 of the Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings and Compulsory Winding-up Act. If a director fails to fulfil these obligations, a special, lex specialis, direct and non-business liability to a payment of compensation towards creditors arises, subject to Article 42 of the Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings and Compulsory Winding-up Act. A director is liable to creditors for damages they incurred by not receiving a full payment of compensation they claimed. For this kind of liability, a specific procedural prerequisite is prescribed by law in form of an initiation of bankruptcy. As the purpose of these legislative provisions is ensuring an efficient protection of creditors’ interests upon declaration of company's insolvency, the liquidator and in term insolvency creditors, are fully relieved of the burden of proof. The law sets a presumption of a casual link and the amount of damages. The liquidator and bankruptcy creditors only have to account for the initiation of bankruptcy and unlawful director's conduct upon company's declaration of insolvency, respectively indicating a director failed to comply with the provisions of Article 34-39 of the Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings and Compulsory Winding-up Act. In this case the exculpatory reasons are stricter compared to director's liability for payment of compensation towards company, whereas a director does not have the privilege to use the business judgement rule, generally applicable when making business decisions instead of legally binding decisions. Theory and practice have shown the provision determining director's liability to payment of compensation from Article 42 of the Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings and Compulsory Winding-up Act, failed to make an impact. Through this thesis I have tried to find the "loopholes" that former director of creditors cleverly use in order to avoid liability, but came to conclusion the legislation is adequate and requires no amending. The reasons the aforementioned provision failed to make an impact (the reason t
Keywords:	insolvency, director’s liabilities, bankruptcy, liability to payment of compensation

Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)

0 - 0 / 0

There are no comments!

Back