Can the corporate veil be pierced under Lithuanian law?

LTAkcentuodami juridinio asmens ribotą atsakomybę, prisidėjusią prie laisvos rinkos ekonomikos sukūrimo Vakarų valstybėse, Lietuvos teisininkai bei įstatymų leidėjai dažnai pamiršta atkreipti dėmesį į galimus ribotos atsakomybės panaudojimo atvejus neteisėtais tikslais. Tai nėra pateisinama egzistuojant pasaulinio lygio susirūpinimui šia problema bei bandymams su ja kovoti. Todėl šio darbo tikslas yra atsakyti į teisinį klausimą: ar Lietuvos įstatymai leidžia pakelti akcinės bendrovės atsakomybės šydą, saugantį bendrovės akcininkus nuo neribotos turtinės atsakomybės už bendrovės prievoles. Darbo tikslui pasiekti iškeliami šie uždaviniai: 1) rasti teisinius argumentus tam tikrais atvejais pateisinančius ribotos atsakomybės taisyklės nepaisymą; 2) ištirti kaip teisinis bendrovės atsakomybės šydo pakėlimo mechanizmas veikia skirtinguose teisiniuose kontekstuose (apžvelgiama JAV, DB, Vokietijos patirtis); 3) išanalizuoti ir interpretuoti Lietuvos įstatymus, reguliuojančius akcininkų atsakomybę už bendrovės prievoles, bei aptarti galimybę pakelti akcinės bendrovės ribotos atsakomybės šydą Lietuvoje; 4) numatyti tolimesnes teisinio bendrovės atsakomybės šydo pakėlimo mechanizmo vystymo kryptis Lietuvoje. Tikslui pasiekti bei uždaviniams įgyvendinti pasitelkiami lyginamasis, istorinis, sisteminis bei lingvistinis teisinės analizės metodai. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Akcinė bendrovė; Bendrovės akcininkas; Juridinis asmuo; Nesąžiningas elgesys; Nesąžiningumas civilinėje teisėje; Ribota atsakomybė; Ribotoji atsakomybė; Dishonest actions; Dishonesty in civil law; Legal entity; Limited liability; Shareholder of corporation.

ENThe starting point in this article is the observation that while stressing the importance of the limited liability of the legal entity as a basis for the creation and development of the market economy, the lawyers and legislators of Lithuania often forget to refer the attention to possible uses of the limited liability for the illegal purposes. This approach is without excuse when there is worldwide concern about this problem and attempts are made to handle it. Therefore, author aims at answering the question whether the laws of Lithuania allow piercing the corporate veil, which protects the shareholders of the corporation from the unlimited real liability in respect to the liabilities of the corporation. As the general basis, author states that seeking for the arguments in favour of the piercing of the corporate veil requires balancing social and economic advantages of the limited liability, while respecting the principle of the separation of management and property in legal entity, and considering the risk that the society may take. The rule of the limited liability of the legal entity may be ignored when the principle of the separation of management and property in legal entity is not observed, and the limited liability of the legal entity is used to pursue not the interests of the corporation, but the personal interests of the investor. Also the exceptions to this general rule are justified when the corporate veil is used to escape the legitimate claims of the creditors, when too much of the risk of the business is transferred to the creditors having no chances to protect themselves in the negotiation process.At the concrete level, author states that the mechanism (or doctrine) of the piercing of the corporate veil, although widely used in the US, is criticized there for the indeterminacy and inconsistency of application, that the similar situation may be found in the European Union, and that this Union does not regulate this area by its legal norms, making this regulation the inherent feature of every concrete jurisdiction of the member state. The law of Lithuania provides for the possibility to pierce the corporate veil when the following conditions are satisfied: 1) corporation was unable to fulfil its obligation; 2) shareholder of corporation acted dishonestly; 3) shareholder’s dishonest acts caused corporation’s inability to fulfil its obligation. While the contents the first and third requirements is clear, the application of the second requirement may raise certain practical problems. Author makes an argument that recent Lithuanian legal base with respect to piercing the corporate veil is twofold: on the one hand, the Civil Code allows piercing the corporate veil and defines the situation when it can be done; on the other hand, the content of this statutory provision is vague and calls for elaboration by the courts. [...]. [From the publication]