The fiscal authority (creditor) from Bistri\u021ba-N\u0103s\u0103ud sought to hold the former administrator of the debtor company personally liable, invoking Article 169 letters (a), (d), (e), and (h) of Law 85\/2014. It was alleged that the defendant:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On appeal, the creditor attempted to expand the scope of the case by invoking Article 169 letter (c) for the first time\u2014alleging continuation of business activity in personal interest leading to insolvency. However, the Court rejected this, citing procedural rules that prohibit changing the subject of the claim on appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the initial ruling, the syndic judge dismissed the administrator liability claim. Upon review, the Court of Appeal upheld that decision, concluding that the cumulative legal conditions for special tort liability were not met.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The syndic judge may order that part of the debtor\u2019s liabilities be borne by members of its management or supervisory bodies\u2014or anyone who caused its insolvency\u2014if they:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On appeal, parties cannot change their identities, the cause, or the object of the claim, nor introduce new claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The creditor claimed the administrator failed to submit accounting documents. The court found that the judicial administrator did receive the necessary documents, albeit delayed\u2014thus defeating the legal presumption of guilt. Without concrete accounting irregularities or missing documentation, there was no unlawful act. The fiscal authority offered no specific details.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The creditor argued that failure to recover receivables deprived the company of funds. The court ruled:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Failure to remit withheld taxes and contributions doesn\u2019t automatically prove use of those funds for personal gain. Without such proof, letter (h) doesn\u2019t apply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A report under Article 97(1), Law 85\/2014, identified COVID-19 as the primary cause of insolvency\u2014drastically reducing business activity and generating unsustainable fixed costs. Bankruptcy stemmed from objective external factors, not the administrator\u2019s actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court of Appeal determined that the special tort liability conditions under Article 169 of Law 85\/2014 were not cumulatively met.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Accordingly, under Article 480 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appeal by the fiscal authority was rejected, and the original judgment of the Bistri\u021ba-N\u0103s\u0103ud Tribunal was upheld in full.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
***<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Do you have questions about administrators and directors\u2019 liability in insolvency or want to avoid financial risks? Contact a Brisc Legal lawyer specialized in insolvency for personalized advice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Facts Established by the Court The fiscal authority (creditor) from Bistri\u021ba-N\u0103s\u0103ud sought to hold the former administrator of the debtor company personally liable, invoking Article 169 letters (a), (d), (e), and (h) of Law 85\/2014. It was alleged that the defendant: On appeal, the creditor attempted to expand the scope of the case by invoking … <\/p>\n