Gumuliauskienė, Gintarė

Any involvement in business is associated with the risk which a business decision may bring in terms of both gains and losses. Economic activities have business cycles and fluctuations, so neither a constant and stable profit nor deals that are always beneficial can be guaranteed. If directors were personally responsible for every loss-making decision, this would ruin their initiative and entrepreneurship and limit their discretion in situations requiring prompt and decisive action. However, if directors were not subject to legal liability for damages incurred due to their decisions, this would increase the risk of directors adopting unlawful decisions. Therefore, it is important to find the golden mean between liability and freedom to adopt decisions. This article aims to present the rules applied in the Lithuanian legal system in liability cases against directors in the evaluation of risky business decisions. The research has shown that there is no explicit legal rule in Lithuanian corporate law which provides for a business judgment rule, since the Lithuanian legal system, like most legal systems in other countries with a civil law tradition, does not recognise the judicial abstention doctrine, which emphasises a court’s right not to consider ex post criticism of directors’ decisions. In Lithuania, there is no tradition of litigation proceedings and rules formulated in judicial decisions that allow directors to be aware of the decision-making rules ex ante, so that their decisions cannot be assessed as illegal ex post.

The bankrupts and financial crisis of large-sized companies, which took place in Eastern Asia, USA, Europe and Australia between the middle of XX and beginning of the XXI centuries, stimulated to take a deeper look into the legal status of the members of the companies’ management bodies, because one of the main reasons which determined the bankrupts and financial crisis all over the world was bad faith, improper performance of duties and negligence of the members of the companies’ management bodies. Unfortunately, neither Lithuanian legal acts, nor case law, nor legal doctrine provide with clear understanding what is and should be attributed to the category of the companies’ management bodies. This implies the uncertainty problem regarding the persons to be applied by the liability standard of management body members. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine the types of companies’ management bodies under Lithuanian law. This objective will be reached by the analysis of the concept of the management body, presenting the corporate governance systems dominating over the world and identifying the content as well as the nature of management function performed by the management bodies. The research has shown that the management function comprises three functions, i.e. direction, representation and control; therefore, board of directors, supervisory council and the head of a company are deemed to be part of a category of management bodies.

At all times the majority of directors, which desired to properly perform and develop activities on behalf of a company in a competitive market, were raising relevant questions on how to control a company aiming to guarantee and ensure its financial viability and competitiveness, what is the line between the freedom of decision-making and personal liability therefore, are the directors equally as the shareholders protected under the limited liability doctrine? The prevailing opinion is that principle of limited liability protects shareholders and only shareholders from liability. Therefore, in this study the authors explore this premise from the perspective of the doctrinal implications of immunising directors from personal liability for their actions, when managing company’s affairs. The authors’ principal conclusions are that the limited liability doctrine should be applied not only to the shareholders, but also in respect of the directors. Such legal protection from the liability could be withdrawn, when a director commits illegal acts that cause damages to a company or to creditors thereof. In respect of creditors the liability of such director shall still be considered subsidiary, whereas a direct liability of the director may only arise against a company until its liquidation and only after the completion of liquidation proceedings – against the creditors whose claims remained unsatisfied.

Straipsnyje pateikiama neteisėtumo kaip vienos iš vadovo civilinės atsakomybės už rizikingais verslo sprendimais bendrovei padarytą žalą sąlygų teisinė analizė, kuria siekiama nustatyti ribas tarp rizikingų verslo sprendimų priėmimo laisvės ir asmeninės vadovo atsakomybės už juos. Straipsnį sudaro du pagrindiniai skyriai, antrasis iš jų suskirstytas į du poskyrius, antrąjį išskiriant į dvi dalis pagal atitinkamas potemes. Pirmajame straipsnio skyriuje nagrinėjama sąvokos „rizikingi verslo sprendimai“ samprata, o antrajame - neteisėtumas kaip bendrovės vadovo civilinės atsakomybės už bendrovei padarytą žalą, kilusią dėl rizikingo verslo sprendimo priėmimo, sąlyga. Šioje straipsnio dalyje nagrinėjamas rizikingų verslo sprendimų priėmimo tvarkos teisinis reguliavimas, analizuojama civilinės atsakomybės bendrovės vadovui už priimamus rizikingus verslo sprendimus taikymo praktika ir, remiantis užsienio valstybių patirtimi bei atsižvelgiant į šios patirties pritaikymo galimybes Lietuvoje, siūlomi būdai ir priemonės egzistuojančioms problemoms spręsti.

Straipsnyje pateikiama bendrovės vienasmenio valdymo organo atsakomybės prigimties teisinė analizė, siekiama nustatyti bei įvertinti, kokios teisinės atsakomybės taisyklės – civilinės ar darbo – taikomos bendrovės vadovui už jo neteisėtais veiksmais bendrovei padarytą žalą. Straipsnį sudaro dvi pagrindinės dalys, antroji iš jų suskirstyta į dvi mažesnes dalis pagal atitinkamas potemes. Pirmojoje straipsnio dalyje analizuojama bendrovės vadovo teisinės atsakomybės prigimties nustatymo problema, kurią atitinkamai implikuoja Lietuvos teisinėje sistemoje įtvirtintas bendrovės vadovo teisinio statuso ir atsakomybės dualizmas. Antrojoje – pateikiama išsami bendrovės vadovo atsakomybės už bendrovei padarytą žalą prigimties teisinė analizė. Keliamas klausimas, kokios visgi teisės normos – civilinės ar darbo – turi būti taikomos vadovui, kai bendrovė patiria žalos dėl vadovo neteisėtų veiksmų.