News

Gholizadeh Manghutay, A. (2023). Legal Analysis of Confession, Denial, and Oath by the Executive Manager or the Liquidator of bankruptcy on Behalf of the Company. , 53(3), 465-487. doi: 10.22059/jlq.2024.361317.1007781
Ahad Gholizadeh Manghutay. "Legal Analysis of Confession, Denial, and Oath by the Executive Manager or the Liquidator of bankruptcy on Behalf of the Company". , 53, 3, 2023, 465-487. doi: 10.22059/jlq.2024.361317.1007781
Gholizadeh Manghutay, A. (2023). 'Legal Analysis of Confession, Denial, and Oath by the Executive Manager or the Liquidator of bankruptcy on Behalf of the Company', , 53(3), pp. 465-487. doi: 10.22059/jlq.2024.361317.1007781
Gholizadeh Manghutay, A. Legal Analysis of Confession, Denial, and Oath by the Executive Manager or the Liquidator of bankruptcy on Behalf of the Company. , 2023; 53(3): 465-487. doi: 10.22059/jlq.2024.361317.1007781

Legal Analysis of Confession, Denial, and Oath by the Executive Manager or the Liquidator of bankruptcy on Behalf of the Company

مطالعات حقوق خصوصی
Article 6, Volume 53, Issue 3, November 2023, Pages 465-487    PDF (1010.79 K)
Document Type: Research Paper
DOI: 10.22059/jlq.2024.361317.1007781
Author
Ahad Gholizadeh Manghutay*
Associate Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan. Iran.
Abstract
One of the main problems in suing legal entities, including companies, is their confession, denial or oath. At first sight, it seems they cannot take oath, confess, or deny, but a closer look shows the opposite. In the lawsuits for or against the company, the Civil Procedure Code and the Commerce Act consider the executive manager and the liquidator as the claimant, respectively. The legislature does not consider such a position for contractual representatives. In all these cases, the other party in the lawsuit requires confession or an oath of the executive manager, and the company will need to deny or doubt the other party’s claims. The executive manager’s writings in the commercial notebooks are counted as the company’s written confession. Therefore, it seems that the company’s confession, denial, and oath are also imaginable, and it is on merits possible to deem the confession or denial of the executive manager or liquidator of the company as confession or denial of the company and require the executive manager or liquidator to take oath on behalf of the company. They can accept to take the oath, although they are unlikely to be able to refuse to take the oath. In this regard, some reasons are presented, such as a natural bankrupt person; in this case, the executive manager, despite the company’s bankruptcy, has not lost his standing completely and still can accomplish some work on behalf of the bankrupt company. All of these, in addition to companies, will apply to all types of legal entities.
 This descriptive-analytical research will show that the legislator considers contractual representatives the parties’ lawyers while legal representatives are the parties to the case. In this regard, the executive manager is not a contractual but a legal representative. The reason is that he is not determined by his principle (company) but according to the rules laid down in the law.
In analyzing the subject of this article, it is necessary to discuss assuming the impossibility of confession, denial, or oath of a legal person; considering the executive manager and the liquidator as the claimant; differences between the places of legal and contractual representatives; means of confession, denial, or oath of the executive manager or liquidator on behalf of the company; and the possibility of bankrupt businessman’s intervention in commercial lawsuits.
The precedence of assuming the legal status of contractual and legal representatives as the same by most practitioners and analysts has led to misconceptions. But as the hypothesis of this article, the legislator clearly differentiated between the two groups, granted them different rights and powers, and thus made it possible for a legal person to confess, deny, or take an oath.
The research showed that contrary to what is known, legal entities can confess, deny, or take an oath, and each of these cases is done by their legal representative (executive manager) or deputy (liquidator or head of the bankruptcy liquidation department). Since legal persons do not enjoy the capacity to exercise rights and discharge obligations, the legislator somehow principally considers the legal person and his legal representative the same. The legal representative is also considered the claimant, and his position differs from the contractual representative’s (lawyer) position.
Not only the claim of rights but also the recovery of all the company’s rights is with the executive manager. Therefore, in principle, he has all powers granted by the legal person. He can either confess or deny or take oath in the name and for account of the legal person. The company’s components and crew cannot confess, deny, or oath on behalf of the company. The Board of Directors is also not a legal representative (executive) of a legal person.
The executive manager is not a contractual agent but a legal representative. The liquidator is a substitute for the bankrupt. Unlike a contractual representative, a legal representative cannot object as a third party to a decision for or against his principle but may request a retrial. Absent the guardian (executive manager), a legal claimant cannot file a lawsuit or hire a lawyer. If his former guardian has hired a lawyer (a contractual representative) for it, that lawyer will also be dismissed by the deterioration of the guardian’s position.
By law, the legal representative must be presently the principles’ representative to confess, deny, or oath on behalf of him for the events of his current or previous tenure. Given the current executive manager’s dominance over all the old and new information in the company, it seems that he can also confess or oath (independently or supportively) about events before his appointment based on recorded documents of those events. Of course, it appears that he cannot refuse or cancel such an oath and cause the claimant’s dominance over the company’s assets.
The legislator has exceptionally allowed the bankrupt, with the court’s permission,, to intervene outside the incapacity into a dispute currently set by or against his substitute (liquidator) as a third party. Bankrupt legal entities need their legal representative (executive manager) to exercise this right.
Keywords
Confession; Denial; Oath; Executive Manager; Liquidator of Bankruptcy
References

منابع

الف) فارسی

  1. افتخار جهرمی، گودرز و السان، مصطفی (1396). آیین دادرسی مدنی. ج 1. تهران: میزان.
  2. اصغری آقمشهدی، فخرالدین و تفرشی، محمدعیسی (1385). ماهیت حقوقی رابطۀ مدیران شرکت‌های سهامی با شرکت. مجلۀ دانشکدۀ علوم اداری و اقتصاد دانشگاه اصفهان، 18(2)، 35-51. https://ensani.ir/fa/article/41110 (13 (13دی 1402)
  3. امین، سید حسن (1385). سوگند در ایران و اسلام. مجلۀ کانون، 107-122. در: http://ensani.ir/fa/article/159001 (13 دی 1402)
  1. تقی‌زاده، علی‌اکبر (1379). بحثی دربارۀ قاعدۀ «من ملک شیئاً ملک الاقرار به. مجلۀ کانون، 44(21)، 43-48. در: http://ensani.ir/fa/article/157607 (13 دی 1402)
  2. ثابت‌سعیدی، ارسلان (1391). حقوق تجارت (رشته‌های علوم اجتماعی و حسابداری). تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه پیام نور.
  3. حسنی، حسن (1380). حقوق تجارت. تهران: میزان.
  4. خدابخشی، حسن و عربیان، اصغر (1393). اعتبار قاعدۀ «من ملک شیئاً ملک الاقرار به» در اقرار یا اخبار. مبانی فقهی حقوق اسلامی، 7(14)، 35-63. در: https://jfil.srbiau.ac.ir/article_9241.html (13 دی 1402)
  5. خدابخشی، عبدالله (1392). ابعاد قضایی دعوای ورشکستگی. فصلنامۀ تعالی حقوق، 3، 7-40. در: https://elmnet.ir/doc/1292292-51181 (13 دی 1402)
  6. شمس، عبدالله (1385). آیین دادرسی مدنی. ج 2 و 3. تهران: دراک.
  7. صفار، محمدجواد (1379). بررسی خصیصۀ توکیل‌ناپذیری اقرار، شهادت و سوگند با نگاهی انتقادی به‌ تبصرۀ 2 مادۀ 35 قانون آیین دادرسی دادگاه‌های عمومی و انقلاب (در امور مدنی. مجلۀ تحقیقات حقوقی 3(29-30)، 103-187. در: https://lawresearchmagazine.sbu.ac.ir/article_56764.html (13 دی 1402)
  8. صقری، محمد (1376). حقوق بازرگانی، ورشکستگی، نظری و عملی. تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
  9. عبدیپورفرد، ابراهیم (1393). حقوق تجارت، ج چهارم، حقوق ورشکستگی. تهران: مجمع علمی و فرهنگی مجد.
  10. قلی‌زاده منقوطای، احد (1398). تحلیل اصل اعتبار مطلق آرای دادگاه‌ها در آیین دادرسی و اجرای احکام مدنی. فقه و حقوق اسلامی 10(18)، 173-200. در: https://law.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_9674.html (13 دی 1402)
  11. قلی‌زاده منقوطای، احد (1395). تحلیل حقوقی اصل اختصاص انحصاری ارگان اجرایی شرکت به ‌مدیر عامل. دانشنامۀ حقوق اقتصادی، 23(9)، 39-69. در: https://lawecon.um.ac.ir/article_29394.html (13 دی 1402)
  12. کاتوزیان، ناصر (1366) حقوق مدنی: قواعد عمومی قراردادها. ج 2، تهران: بهنشر.
  13. کریمی، عباس و پرتو، حمیدرضا (1398). آیین دادرسی مدنی (ج3) استثنائات دادرسی. تهران: دادگستر.
  14. محسنی، حسن (1400). نمایندگی مدیر عامل شرکت در دادخواهی‌های آن شرکت (نقد و بررسی سه رأی از شعب 25، 1 و 15 دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان تهران).» حقوق تجارت بین‌الملل در پرتو تحولات جهانی (مجموعه مقالات اهدایی به استاد دکتر بهروز اخلاقی). تهران: گنج دانش،441- 415 .
  15. محمدی، پژمان (1389[الف]). محدودیت‌های شخصی سوگند در دعاوی مدنی. فصلنامۀ حقوق، 40(101)، 297-316. در: https://jlq.ut.ac.ir/article_21128.html (13 دی 1402)
  16. محمدی، پژمان (1389[ب]). محدودیت‌های موضوعی سوگند در دعاوی مدنی. فصلنامۀ پژوهش حقوق، 12(29)، 387-416. در: https://qjpl.atu.ac.ir/?_action=article&au=28360&_au (13 دی 1402)
  17. محمدی، جلیل (1386). حقوق بازرگانی. تبریز: فروزش.
  18. مهاجری، علی (1379). شرح قانون آیین دادرسی مدنی دادگاه‌های عمومی و انقلاب. ج1. تهران: گنج دانش.
  19. نوکنده‌ای، عزیز (1380). تفسیر قضایی آیین دادرسی مدنی ایران. تهران: دانش نگار.
ب) خارجی

  1. Bagrial, A. (2007). Company Law; Incorporating the Companies (Amendment) Act 2006. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd.
  2. Bhatia, N., & Sethi, J. (2012). Corporate and Compensation Laws. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited.
  3. Brennan, G., & Casey, N. (2008). Conveyancing. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press.
  4. Clarke, Donald C., & Nicholas C. Howson. (2012). Pathway to Minority Shareholder Protection; Derivative Action in the People's Republic of China. In The Derivative Action in Asia; A Comparative and Functional Approach, by Dan W. Puchniak, Harald Baum and Michael Ewing-Chow, 243-256. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  5. CunninGham-Hill, Susan, and Karen Elder. (2013) Civil Litigation Handbook. London: Oxford University Press.
  6. Daly, M. (2011). Property Issues in Insolvency. In Complex Conveyancing, by Rachael Hession and Nuala Casey, 191-210. West Sussex: Bloomsbury Professional.
  7. Epstain, Edward, and Will W. Shen. (2014). Section I. Business and Regulatory Environment; Chinese Civil Law. In Doing Business in China, by Michael J. Moser and Fu Yu, I-6.1-2. New York: Juris Publishing.
  8. Fei, J., & Hill, R.(2014). "Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in the PRC." In Doing Business in China, by Michael J. Moser and Fu Yu, IV-4-5. New York: Juris Publishing.
  9. Garrett, Brandon L. (2008). Corporate Confessions. Cardozo Law Review, 30(3): 917-947. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3880 (2 Jan. 2024)
  10. Gerner-Bauerle, Carsten, and Michael Schillig. (2019) Comparative Company Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Guillaume, F. (2005). The Law Governing Companies in Swiss Private International Law. In Yearbook of Private International Law, by Peter Sarsevic, Paul Volken and Andrea Bonomi, 251-291. Lausanne: European Law Publishers GmbH, Staempfli Publishers Ltd, and Swiss Institute of Comparative Law.
  12. Jelinek, J., & Beran, K. (2011). Why the Czech Republic Does Not (Yet) Recognize Corporate Criminal Liability: A Description of Unsuccessful Law Reforms. In Corporate Criminal Liability; Emergence, Convergence, and Risk, by Mark Pieth and Radha Ivory, 333-355. London: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
  13. McGinty, A., McDonald, N., & VC Leow. (2014). Specific Fields and Topics of Law; Insolvency, Liquidation and Dissolution of Enterprises. In Doing Business in China, by Michael J. Moser and Fu Yu, III-9-10. New York: Juris Publishing.
  14. Meng-Seng, W., & Cheng-Han, T. (2016). The Agency of Liquidators and receivers." In Agency Law in Commercial Practice, by Danny Busch, Laura MacGregor and Peter Watts, 119-140. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Nelson, B. L. (2006). Law and Ethics in Global Business; How to Intergrate Law and Ethics into Corporate Governance Around the World. London: Routledge.
  16. Owen, S., & Mackenzie, J. (2010). The Complete Guide to Investigations and Enforcement (A Practical Reference Guide for Local Authority Officers, Police Officers, Private Investigators, and Industry Investigators) . London: Academia.edu.
  17. Palmiter, Alan R. (2009) Corporations. New York: Aspen publishers.
  18. Park, P., & Duncan M. Park. (2016). Energy Law and the Sustainable Company; Innovation and the Corporate Social Responsibility. London: Routledge.
  19. Pisacane, G. (2017). Corporate Governance in China: The Structure and Management of Foreign-Invested Enterprises under Chinese Law. Shanghai: Springer.
  20. Rapp, Philip. (2014) "FIE Holding Companies." In Doing Business in China, by Michael J. Moser and Fu Yu, II-4-5. New York: Juris Publishing.
  21. Roos, M. (2010). Chinese Commercial Law; A Practical Guide. New York: Wolters Kluwer.
  22. Symes, C. F. (2008). Statutory Priorities in Corporate Insolvency Law- An Analysis of Creditor Status. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
  23. Wang, J. Y. (2014). Company Law in China: Regulation of Business Organization. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Statistics
Article View: 635
PDF Download: 450


Journal Management System. Powered by Sinaweb