Search

Lively discussions on civil liability of companies' directors towards the creditors of financially distressed companies have been going on for decades. Recent trends in Lithuanian case law, however, show that, in parallel, creditors of private limited liability companies have also shifted their focus to other real masters of business—controlling shareholders—by, rather aggressively, enforcing shareholders' liability for obligations of insolvent companies. Since recovery rates of unsecured creditors in insolvent liquidations are rather modest, creditors seek to by-pass collective bankruptcy proceedings and bring actions against the abusive shareholder exclusively for their own benefit outside bankruptcy proceedings. Based on comparative examples, the article aims to analyse and evaluate the Lithuanian legal framework by addressing the standing of an individual creditor to hold an abusive corporate shareholder liable for an insolvent company's obligations from the perspective of competing damage claims between an individual creditor and a bankruptcy administrator. The analysis includes both ordinary and fraudulent bankruptcies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Romania, the value of added tax (VAT) is the most important source of revenue for the general consolidated budget (24.4% in 2015 and 23.1% in 2016), but the degree of compliance is around 80% VAT paid on time in relation to the VAT declared in VAT returns submitted by taxable persons registered for VAT purposes. The paper presents the impact of the measure split VAT payment on insolvent agricultural companies, as it has the role of increasing the voluntary compliance rate of companies in insolvency, reducing VAT evasion, ensuring a fair competitive environment by eliminating the advantages of some economic operators with incorrect fiscal behaviour that does not pay VAT to the state budget. The conclusions drawn from the study revealed that the split VAT measure would reduce the chances of recovery for insolvent agricultural companies, contradicts the payment schedule and the prioritization for the distribution to creditors and contravenes the objective for which insolvency proceedings were regulated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]