Debtor-related creditors’ claims in insolvency proceedings
Kuupäev
2019-07-12
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Abstrakt
Eesti maksejõuetusõigus eristab juriidilisest isikust võlgnikele kahte liiki menetlusi. Saneerimismenetlustes proovitakse erinevate abinõude rakendamisega ületada ettevõttel tekkinud makseraskused, et tagada jätkusuutlik majandamine. Pankrotimenetluste käigus lõpetatakse ettevõtte tegevus, kui makseraskused ei ole enam ajutised. Kuigi nende menetluste olemus on erinev, siis mõlema eesmärgiks on rahuldada võlausaldajate nõuded. Selleks esitavad kõik võlausaldajad võlgniku vastu oleva nõude menetlusse, mis annab õiguse hääletada ning saada osa nõuete rahuldamisest. Võlausaldajateks võivad olla ka võlgnikuga seotud isikud, näiteks osanik või tema abikaasa. Küll aga võib neil olla pahatahtlik soov võtta vastu otsuseid võlgniku ja temaga seotud isikute kasuks ning kontrollida menetlust. Veel enam, nõuded, mille alusel hääled määratakse, võivad olla fiktiivsed. Maksejõuetusmenetlused peaksid olema kontrollitavad sõltumatute ja ehtsate nõuetega võlausaldajate poolt. Saneerimismentlustes tuleb välistada olukorrad, kus seotud isik saab hääletada selliselt, et nende hääled on otsustavad saneerimiskava kinnitamisel, kuna sellega võib kahjustada ehtsaid võlausaldajaid. Pankrot võib olla aga olla tahtlikult põhjustatud, mis tähendab, et pankrotihaldur peaks esitama pankroti põhjustanud isikute vastu kahjuhüvitise nõude. Kui võlgnik saab seotud isikute kaudu pankrotimenetlust kontrollida, võib sellise nõude esitamine osutuda võimatuks, mis ei kaitse võlausaldajate huve. Veel enam, osanik või aktsionär võib esitada menetlutesse nõude, mis rahuldatakse teiste võlausaldajatega samas järgus, kuid mis üldiste seisukohtade järgi peaks olema rahuldatud pärast kõikide teiste nõuete tasumist, kuna sellise laenu sisuks on kapitali investeering. Töö eesmärgiks on leida vastus küsimustele, kas Eesti maksejõuetusõiguse reeglid tagavad võlausaldajate ühiste õiguste ja huvide kaitse, kui võlgnikuga seotud võlausaldaja osaleb maksejõuetusmenetlustes ning kas selliste isikute menetlusõiguste kohta oleks vajalik kehtestada piirangud. Töös jõutakse järeldusele, et võlgnikuga seotud võlausaldajate osalemine Eesti maksejõuetusmenetlustes ei taga võlausaldajate ühiseid õigusi ja huve, mistõttu tehakse ettepanekud kehtestada võlgnikuga seotud võlausaldajate osalemise kohta reeglid.
Estonian insolvency law recognises two types of proceedings for legal persons. Reorganisation is regarded as overcoming the company’s solvency problems by applying a set of measures to ensure its sustainable management. In bankruptcy proceedings, business activities will be terminated if economic difficulties are no longer temporary. Although these proceedings differ in nature, the objective of both procedures is to satisfy the creditors’ claims. To this end, all creditors file a claim against the debtor in the proceedings, which gives them the right to vote and have the claim satisfied. Debtor-related creditors, such as a shareholder or their spouse, are also allowed to participate in the proceedings. However, they may have a malicious intent to take decisions in favour of the debtor and their related persons and control the proceedings. Moreover, the claims on which the votes are based may be fictitious. Yet, insolvency proceedings should be controlled by independent creditors with real claims. In reorganistion proceedings, such situations must be prevented where debtor-related creditors can vote in such a way that their votes will play a decisive role in the acceptance of the reorganisation plan, because this may harm interests of creditors. Moreover, insolvency of the debtor may be intentionally caused, which means that the trustee is required to file a claim for compensation for damages against the persons liable in bankruptcy proceedings. If the debtor can control the proceedings through related creditors, it may be impossible to file such a claim, which does not protect the interests of the creditors. Furthermore, shareholders may file a loan claim, which is satisfied in the same ranking as other unsecured creditors’ claims. Although according to the general opinion, this loan claim should be satisfied after all other claims have been covered, because such a loan is a capital investment. The aim of this dissertation is to examine whether Estonian insolvency law safeguards the common rights and interests of creditors when debtor-related creditors participate in insolvency proceedings, and whether restrictions on the participation of such creditors should be laid down. The author has come to the conclusion that Estonian insolvency law does not protect the common rights and interests of creditors in insolvency proceedings when debtor-related creditors participate in the proceedings. Therefore, certain rules on the participation of debtor-related creditors should be laid down.
Estonian insolvency law recognises two types of proceedings for legal persons. Reorganisation is regarded as overcoming the company’s solvency problems by applying a set of measures to ensure its sustainable management. In bankruptcy proceedings, business activities will be terminated if economic difficulties are no longer temporary. Although these proceedings differ in nature, the objective of both procedures is to satisfy the creditors’ claims. To this end, all creditors file a claim against the debtor in the proceedings, which gives them the right to vote and have the claim satisfied. Debtor-related creditors, such as a shareholder or their spouse, are also allowed to participate in the proceedings. However, they may have a malicious intent to take decisions in favour of the debtor and their related persons and control the proceedings. Moreover, the claims on which the votes are based may be fictitious. Yet, insolvency proceedings should be controlled by independent creditors with real claims. In reorganistion proceedings, such situations must be prevented where debtor-related creditors can vote in such a way that their votes will play a decisive role in the acceptance of the reorganisation plan, because this may harm interests of creditors. Moreover, insolvency of the debtor may be intentionally caused, which means that the trustee is required to file a claim for compensation for damages against the persons liable in bankruptcy proceedings. If the debtor can control the proceedings through related creditors, it may be impossible to file such a claim, which does not protect the interests of the creditors. Furthermore, shareholders may file a loan claim, which is satisfied in the same ranking as other unsecured creditors’ claims. Although according to the general opinion, this loan claim should be satisfied after all other claims have been covered, because such a loan is a capital investment. The aim of this dissertation is to examine whether Estonian insolvency law safeguards the common rights and interests of creditors when debtor-related creditors participate in insolvency proceedings, and whether restrictions on the participation of such creditors should be laid down. The author has come to the conclusion that Estonian insolvency law does not protect the common rights and interests of creditors in insolvency proceedings when debtor-related creditors participate in the proceedings. Therefore, certain rules on the participation of debtor-related creditors should be laid down.
Kirjeldus
Väitekirja elektrooniline versioon ei sisalda publikatsioone
Märksõnad
maksejõuetus, võlgade ümberkujundamine, saneerimine, pankrotimenetlus, järelevalve, võlausaldajad