Credit default and responsibility of the administrator

responsabilidad administrador

For a successful individual action of liability of directors, there must be an organic cause unlawful non-payment of credit

 Consult your case now

No basta la existencia del daño y del incumplimiento de sus deberes para que se estime la acción individual de responsabilidad frente al administrador de una sociedad . Es necesaria la relación de causalidad entre dicho ilícito orgánico y el impago.

The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, in Case 14 November 2019, Res. No. 612/2019, ha estimado el recurso de casación interpuesto por el administrador de una sociedad al entender que no hubo relación de causalidad entre su comportamiento y el daño sufrido por el demandante.

Fact background,,es,Juan Alberto and Paulina filed suit against FTA,,es,Asset Securitization Fund,,es,requesting the declaration of nullity for abusive of the floor and ceiling clauses contained in the novation contract of the mortgage loan of,,es,with the corresponding refund of amounts unduly collected,,es,The Securitization Fund Management Company,,es,Beech,,es,acting on behalf of FTA, he responded to said claim alleging that he lacked passive legitimacy since the entity had no legal personality and that it constituted only a private and open fund and that therefore the passive legitimization corresponded to BBVA as successor of Catalunya Banc that was the Company fund constituent,,es

In 2003 It was established Formwork summarized Callau, S.L. (ECS), with a registered capital 3.005 euros. Its corporate purpose was the execution of works, the sale of farms, the reparcelaciones and land developments, real estate development and land tenure and property management. Their managers were D. Secundino and D. Juan Ramon. In 2005 They were deposited in the Mercantile Registry the last annual accounts, It is equity, positivos. In return, in 2006, the annual accounts were deposited not because they were made by D. Secundino, but not signed by D. Juan Ramon.

The 19 December 2006, constituted society XXI Works Vallmir, S.L., D. Secundino and D. Genaro, which he was transferred assets ECS, as property, plant and workers.

The 23 November 2007, ECS subcontracted to D. Carlos Miguel for a paint job New Real Estate Deltebre, S.L., providing for payment promissory notes that, at maturity, They were unpaid. an exchange trial was initiated and paid part of the debt. By judgment later, D. Carlos Miguel, He got the rest of the debt owed ECS, specifically, 26.461,72 euros.

ECS claimed in court via credit owed byNew Real Estate Deltebre, S.L. However,  the first, cesó en su actividad sin disolver la sociedad ni solicitar un concurso de acreedores.

D. Carlos Miguel filed suit to be condemned to ECS, D. Secundino and D. Juan Ramón to pay credit 41.204,30 euros. So that it could convict the two directors of the company, filed two actions for damages, one based on Article 367 LSC, for breach of the duty to urge the dissolution of society, and single action Article 241 LSC.

Primera Instancia

The 31 March 2015 judgment was rendered by the Commercial Court No. 1 Tarragona, dismissing the claim of credit to society. He also dismissed the action Article 367 LSC because it was not established that the company was affected by any circumstance of dissolution before the birth of credit. individual action was estimated Article 241 LSC frente and D. Juan Ramon. He ordered to pay the amount of 28.928,93 euros (plus interest credit).

The Court considered that, the company had insufficient assets, and creditors placed in a worsening of its position. Also carry a messy or arbitrary behavior and not to promote settlement or contest when he had to make, It is a direct consequence of the conduct of administrators. He condemned D. Juan Ramón because the active material was left in society. This prevented repay the debt which is claimed by D. Carlos Miguel. No he attempted to collect the receivables of the company to meet the debt. It absolved D. Secundino.

Provincial Court

He appealed for D. Carlos Miguel. Both ECS and D. Secundino, opposed.

The 5 July 2016, Section 1 of the Provincial Court of Tarragona gave judgment upholding. He condemned jointly administrators, D. Secundino and D. Juan Carlos, payment of 28.938,93 euros, statutory interest. He did not rule on the coast.

Tarragona Provincial Court considered that D. Secundino was also responsible for the frustration of paying credit because none of the managers I met its legal duties of liquidation of the company, as the dissolution or promoting the bankruptcy, thwarting legitimate expectation of total or partial satisfaction of claims by creditors. Also, D. Secundino, to creating a new partnership with D. Genaro, It transferred assets ECS, understood as an active conduct administrator. Not only did not promote the dissolution and liquidation, but settled de facto ECS.

Supreme Court

D. Secundino filed an extraordinary appeal for procedural infringement and appeal. The first based on a reason, and the second, in two.

In an extraordinary appeal for procedural infringement infringement alleged procedural rules laid down in Article 218.2 LEC in conjunction with Article 24 EC. It was rejected because the fact of not sharing the judgment made by the Audiencia Provincial does not mean that the judgment were not motivated.

For his part, The appeal was based on two reasons:

  • The primer motivo It was founded on infringement by misapplication of Article 241 LSC, in relation to the jurisprudence. It was emphasized that D. Secundino he not disowned society, because he exercised action to collect what is owed by the developer of the works, when it hired D. Carlos Miguel. D. Secundino did not cause frustration charging credit.
  • The segundo motivo He denounced the violation by improper application of Article 367 LSC, in relation to the case law and Article 5 LC.

The 14 November 2019, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court delivered its judgment dismissing the extraordinary appeal for procedural infringement and estimating the appeal.

The Chamber considered the first plea for D. Secundino because:

para que pueda prosperar la acción individual es necesario identificar una conducta propia del administrador, other than nonpayment credit, que pueda calificarse de ilícito orgánico y a la cual pueda atribuirse la causa de no haber sido satisfecho el crédito.

Although the organic was reported illicit conduct a practice done without closing liquidation operations and a general denunciation of distraction asset, resulta complicado probar la relación de causalidad entre este ilícito orgánico y el impago de la deuda. Era preciso constatar la existencia de concretos activos que hubieran permitido abonar de forma total o parcial la deuda D. Carlos Miguel.

Quedó probado que ECS cesó en su actividad cuando surgió la deuda con D. Carlos Miguel por los trabajos de pintura que se le subcontrataron. También que fue disuelta y que ejercitó acciones judiciales de reclamación de créditos frente a Nova Inmobiliaria Deltebre, S.L. Este era su único activo, pues no constaban otros, ni siquiera la posibilidad de haber distraído activos para evitar el pago del crédito a D. Carlos Miguel, porque Obres Vallmir XXI, S.L. se constituyó once meses antes de la subcontratación.

D. Carlos Miguel pudo asegurarse el cobro de lo que le debía la sociedad mediante el ejercicio del embargo del crédito.

As regards the second reason, la Sala consideró innecesario entrar a analizarlo.

Ultimately, desestimó el recurso de infracción procesal, imponiéndole las costas a D. Secundino y estimó el recurso de casación, no haciendo expresa condena en costas, por lo que desestimó el recurso de apelación de D. Carlos Miguel, condenándole al pago de las costas de la apelación a este último.

Conclusion

Cuando un acreedor ejercita una acción individual de responsabilidad frente al administrador of a society por el impago de un crédito, es necesario probar una conducta propia del mismo, other than nonpayment credit, que pueda calificarse de ilícito orgánico, and which can be attributed the cause of failure to meet credit. Debe probarse que había activos para pagar la deuda.

 Consult your case now

Leave a Reply

Language


Set as default language
 Edit Translation


Subscribe to receive a book PDF


Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter



Subscribe me

* This field is required