The Court of Appeal, reviewing the appeal against the syndic judge\u2019s ruling, addressed the administrator\u2019s objection regarding the expiry of the right to claim, as well as the substance of the claim under Article 169 (1) letters (a) and (d) of Law 85\/2014.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this case, the debtor company was under simplified insolvency proceedings initiated in 2023 at the request of the fiscal creditor. Financial and accounting documents revealed the former administrator carried out substantial unexplained cash withdrawals, while failing to pay tax obligations established through final enforcement decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, the administrator failed to file annual financial statements, did not maintain legally compliant accounting, and made contradictory accounting entries without correcting the balance sheet. Fiscal and judicial auditing bodies labeled these withdrawals as hidden dividends, which led to an additional fiscal liability for the company in the form of dividend tax plus penalties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Due to the absence of credible documentation or explanations\u2014and considering the administrator\u2019s multiple failures\u2014the court found illicit acts and a causal link to insolvency, affirming the administrator\u2019s personal liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The syndic judge may, at the request of the judicial administrator or liquidator, oblige members of the debtor\u2019s governing or supervisory bodies\u2014or any other person who contributed to the company\u2019s insolvency\u2014to bear part or all of the insolvent company\u2019s liabilities, not exceeding the prejudice linked causally to their wrongdoing, if they:
a) used the company\u2019s assets or loans for their own benefit or that of another; …
d) maintained fictitious accounting, caused accounting documents to vanish, or failed to keep accounting in compliance with the law. If accounting documents are not submitted to the judicial administrator or liquidator, both guilt and causality are presumed (this presumption is relative).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cPrescription begins when the person contributing to the state of insolvency is known or should have been known, but not later than the date the judicial administrator\u2019s or liquidator\u2019s report is published in the Official Insolvency Monitor.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Administrators are jointly liable to the company for:
c) existing required registers and their correct maintenance;
(2) Administrators are liable for damage caused by breaching legal duties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court held that the 3-year statute of limitations under Article 170 cannot begin before the insolvency procedure\u2019s start.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Thus, the appellate argument that the limitation period started with the conclusion of the 2020 fiscal audit was dismissed. The court confirmed that the right to seek liability arises only once insolvency proceedings begin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Since the lawsuit was filed within one year of the insolvency opening, the filing was timely\u2014the limitation defense was correctly rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Repeated cash withdrawals without justification, coupled with failure to pursue recovery of receivables or correct accounting entries, supported the conclusion that the funds were used in personal interest or for unidentified parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The administrator didn\u2019t submit properly drafted financial statements, didn\u2019t correct accounting errors, and couldn\u2019t justify withdrawals. Tax authorities deemed the withdrawals to be concealed dividends, suggesting intent to evade taxes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Given the legal presumption of guilt and causation, and the administrator\u2019s lack of credible proof, full personal liability was upheld.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unjustified withdrawals and deficient accounting contributed to\u2014and worsened\u2014the company\u2019s insolvency. The fiscal creditor recorded damage in the form of unrecoverable tax claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court established a direct causal relationship between the administrator\u2019s actions and the debtor\u2019s inability to pay, confirming his culpability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court of Appeal dismissed the administrator’s appeal and upheld the syndic judge\u2019s decision to hold him personally liable for the debtor\u2019s obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This decision reinforces jurisprudence that strictly applies Article 169 (1)(a) and (d) of Law 85\/2014, underscoring the importance of maintaining proper accounting and prohibiting use of company assets for personal interest. Administrators of companies nearing insolvency must foresee and understand the risks of personal liability during proceedings\u2014maintaining accurate accounting and clarifying potential issues before insolvency is vital.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Facts in the Case The Court of Appeal, reviewing the appeal against the syndic judge\u2019s ruling, addressed the administrator\u2019s objection regarding the expiry of the right to claim, as well as the substance of the claim under Article 169 (1) letters (a) and (d) of Law 85\/2014. In this case, the debtor company was under … <\/p>\n