Point of law: whether fault of general director of a company is a necessary precondition for holding him subsidiarily liable for the debts of the company, as envisaged by the Bankruptcy Law in case of his failure to convey the accounting documentation to the bankruptcy trustee?

Alternative attitudes: 1) the fault of general director is a necessary precondition for such liability; or 2) his subsidiary liability does not depend on finding his fault in the bankruptcy of the company.

Ratio decidendi: the second approach is legally correct. The Presidium has pointed out that such liability is civil-law one by nature, which means the necessity to determine the fault of the general director, proceeding from whether or not he took all measures for proper performance of obligations as regards keeping and transfer of the documentation, given the degree of care and prudence which ought to be expected from him in the light of the nature of the obligation and conditions of circulation (para 1 of Art 401, Civil Code). Causal link between the lack of documentation (the lack of information therein or a distortion thereof) and the impossibility of satisfying the demands of creditors is also of importance.

Practical consequences: the Judgment says that prior court decisions in analogous cases if inconsistent with this interpretation may be reversed in the procedure and within the limits envisaged by Art 311 of the Commercial Procedure Code.