A carregar...
Publicação
O dever dos administradores na prevenção da insolvência
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 728.42 KB | Adobe PDF |
Autores
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
No presente trabalho debruçar-nos-emos sobre o eventual dever que recai sobre os administradores de prevenirem a insolvência, em conformidade com o art. 19.º, al. b) da Diretiva 2019/1023, de 20 de junho de 2019, doravante designada Diretiva. Começaremos por discutir os interesses conflituantes a que os administradores têm de atender no exercício da sua atividade, de modo a tentar descobrir quais são os que devem ser priorizados face à situação económica em que a sociedade se encontra, visto que o legislador europeu não consagrou uma hierarquização entre eles. Em seguida, passaremos à tentativa de definição do conceito de “probabilidade de insolvência” sobre o qual, apesar de introduzido pelo legislador europeu, não existe qualquer consagração na Diretiva, bem como à sua delimitação temporal, com vista a percebermos a partir de que momento poderá ser imposto ao administrador cumprir com o dever de adotar comportamentos preventivos da situação de insolvência. Neste sentido, recorrendo ao ordenamento jurídico nacional, analisaremos se este novo conceito abarca os conceitos nacionais de “situação económica difícil” e/ou de “insolvência iminente” e qual o prazo que deverá ser atendido para efeitos de responsabilização do administrador, no caso de não ter recorrido a mecanismos preventivos. Chegados ao conceito de insolvência provável, a análise recairá, concretamente, sobre o dever consagrado no art. 19.º, al. b) da Diretiva, ou seja, o dever de os administradores tomarem medidas para evitarem a insolvência. Procuraremos, neste ponto, perceber se tal dever foi, ou não, transposto para o nosso ordenamento jurídico. Numa perspetiva negativa, tentaremos entender se a falta de transposição do dever em causa se deve ao facto de o legislador nacional considerar que o mesmo já se encontra consagrado, existindo já mecanismos de responsabilização dos administradores no caso de, perante uma situação pré-insolvencial, não adotarem qualquer tipo de comportamento preventivo. Finalmente e adiantando a nossa conclusão, confrontados com a incongruência entre a ausência de qualquer dever de prevenção no CIRE e o crime de insolvência negligente, plasmado no art. 228.º, n. º1, al. b) do CP, apresentaremos aquela que, a nosso ver, é a solução que melhor compatibiliza o Direito Europeu e o Direito Penal nacional com o Direito da Insolvência português.
In the present work, we will focus on the potential duty of administrators to prevent insolvency, in accordance with Article 19(b) of Directive 2019/1023 of June 20, 2019. We will begin by discussing the conflicting interests that administrators must consider in the exercise of their duties, aiming to identify which should be prioritized in light of the economic situation of the company. This is particularly important as, once again, the European legislator has refrained from establishing a hierarchy among these interests. Subsequently, we will attempt to define the concept of "probability of insolvency," which, despite being introduced by the European legislator, is not specifically addressed in the Directive, as well as its temporal scope, in order to understand when the director may be required to fulfill the duty to adopt preventive measures to avoid insolvency. In this regard, drawing on national legal provisions, we will analyze whether this new concept encompasses the national concepts of "difficult economic situation" and "imminent insolvency," and the timeframe that should be considered for holding administrators accountable in the event of failing to resort to preventive mechanisms. Once we have arrived at the concept of probable insolvency, the analysis will specifically address the duty established in Article 19, b) of the Directive, specifically the obligation imposed on administrators to take measures to avoid insolvency, and analyze whether this duty has been transposed into our legal system. At this point, we will attempt to understand whether this duty has been incorporated into our legal system. From a negative perspective, we will attempt to understand whether the national legislator considers this duty to be already established, which would justify its non-transposition, and whether there are still mechanisms for holding administrators accountable in cases where they fail to adopt preventive measures in the face of a pre-insolvency situation. Finally, and anticipating our conclusion, confronted with the inconsistency between the absence of any preventive duty in the Insolvency and Restructuring Code (CIRE) and the crime of negligent insolvency, as outlined in Article 228º, n.º1, b) of the Portuguese Penal Code, we will present what we believe to be the solution that best reconciles European law, Portuguese criminal law, and national insolvency law.
In the present work, we will focus on the potential duty of administrators to prevent insolvency, in accordance with Article 19(b) of Directive 2019/1023 of June 20, 2019. We will begin by discussing the conflicting interests that administrators must consider in the exercise of their duties, aiming to identify which should be prioritized in light of the economic situation of the company. This is particularly important as, once again, the European legislator has refrained from establishing a hierarchy among these interests. Subsequently, we will attempt to define the concept of "probability of insolvency," which, despite being introduced by the European legislator, is not specifically addressed in the Directive, as well as its temporal scope, in order to understand when the director may be required to fulfill the duty to adopt preventive measures to avoid insolvency. In this regard, drawing on national legal provisions, we will analyze whether this new concept encompasses the national concepts of "difficult economic situation" and "imminent insolvency," and the timeframe that should be considered for holding administrators accountable in the event of failing to resort to preventive mechanisms. Once we have arrived at the concept of probable insolvency, the analysis will specifically address the duty established in Article 19, b) of the Directive, specifically the obligation imposed on administrators to take measures to avoid insolvency, and analyze whether this duty has been transposed into our legal system. At this point, we will attempt to understand whether this duty has been incorporated into our legal system. From a negative perspective, we will attempt to understand whether the national legislator considers this duty to be already established, which would justify its non-transposition, and whether there are still mechanisms for holding administrators accountable in cases where they fail to adopt preventive measures in the face of a pre-insolvency situation. Finally, and anticipating our conclusion, confronted with the inconsistency between the absence of any preventive duty in the Insolvency and Restructuring Code (CIRE) and the crime of negligent insolvency, as outlined in Article 228º, n.º1, b) of the Portuguese Penal Code, we will present what we believe to be the solution that best reconciles European law, Portuguese criminal law, and national insolvency law.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Administradores Insolvência provável Dever dos administradores prevenirem a insolvência Responsabilidade dos administradores Crime de insolvência negligente Administrators Likely insolvency Duty of administrators to prevent insolvency Liability of administrators Crime of negligent insolvency
Contexto Educativo
Citação
Editora
Licença CC
Sem licença CC