Finansinės pagalbos liberalizavimo ribos

LTStraipsnio tikslas - panagrinėti finansinės pagalbos sampratą, specialaus reguliavimo pagrindimą, finansinės pagalbos teisės pažeidimų pasekmes ir apibendrinti argumentus už visišką finansinės pagalbos reguliavimo panaikinimą. Suvokti finansinės pagalbos sampratą, kuri nebuvo analizuota Lietuvos teisinėje literatūroje, svarbu siekiant tinkamai reguliuoti Lietuvos privataus kapitalo sandorių rinką. Straipsnio aktualumą patvirtina tai, kad nuo 2008 m. liepos 1 d., įgyvendinus Direktyvą 2006/68/EB, pakeičiančią Antrąją Įmonių Direktyvą 77/91/EEB ("Direktyva"), Lietuvoje išlieka finansinės pagalbos draudimas, nepaisant to, kad Direktyva suteikė įstatymų leidėjui galimybę pakeisti draudimą liberalizuota procedūra. Specialaus finansinės pagalbos reguliavimo pagrindimas neįtikinamas, nes į bendrovės elgesio problemas žvelgiama per kapitalo pakankamumo prizmę, užuot taikius bendrovių ir civilinės teisės nuostatas dėl taikinio valdymo organų fiduciarinių pareigų ir kreditorių interesų apsaugos. Finansinės pagalbos reguliavimas ne tik bereikalingas, dažnai nelogiškas, bet ir žalingas tinkamam privataus kapitalo sandorių rinkos funkcionavimui. Straipsnyje siūloma imtis finansinės pagalbos režimo liberalizavimo veiksmų, kurie turėtų teigiamą poveikį Lietuvos sandorių rinkai, neviršijant Direktyvos suteiktos veikimo laisvės ribos.

ENIn the absence of a legal definition of financial assistance, the concept should be understood as any actions by the target which aim at providing the acquirer with the funds needed to acquire shares in the target, and should include post-acquisition assistance, as well as direct and indirect provision and reception of assistance. On the other hand, the concept of financial assistance should be subject to restrictive interpretation, first of all, by testing of the causal relationship between the target's assisting actions and acquisition of the shares, and, secondly, by applying the test of greater purpose as well as specific exemptions. The restrictive interpretation by Lithuanian courts is instrumental to prevent abuse by the creditors of the target who may decide to challenge the transaction on the grounds of the financial assistance prohibition. Although no criminal or administrative liability is established in Lithuanian law for violation of the financial assistance procedure, the nullity of the infringing transactions may be argued to follow as a civil consequence of the violation of mandatory provisions of law. The rationale for a specific regime of financial assistance has been found unconvincing, as addressing problems of corporate conduct in terms of capital maintenance, instead of relying on general corporate and civil law on fiduciary duties of the management bodies of the target and creditors' protection, and insolvency laws. The regime has been found to be not only unnecessary and often illogical, but also detrimental to the proper functioning of private equity market.Regrettably, the relaxation of the financial assistance regime is phrased as an option rather than an obligation in the Directive. It is precisely because of this that the Lithuanian legislator, after implementing the financial assistance rules more strictly than it was required by the Directive, has been given an opportunity to refuse to rectify the consequences of its overzealousness, and to maintain a restriction that it would likely have never devised by itself, without an impetus from the EU law and, indirectly, UK law. It is concluded that the Lithuanian transactional market would benefit from the following steps in liberalisation of the financial assistance regime without going beyond the simplification possibilities allowed by the Directive: 1. Complete abolition of the applicability of financial assistance rules to private companies. 2. Enacting of an explicit list of actions not to be regarded as financial assistance, including implementation of Art. 23(2) of the Directive which provides for exceptions with regard to financial institutions and employees. 3. Restrictive interpretation of the concept of financial assistance by Lithuanian courts. 4. Explicit non-applicability of financial assistance regulation to upstream and downstream post-acquisition mergers. It is only to be hoped that the financial assistance regulations will be abolished from the EU legislation and, consecutively, from Lithuanian law before any leveraged buyouts in the Lithuanian transactional market are hindered by means of the financial assistance formalities.