Ex-director can't litigate bankrupt firm's liquidation in admin court

On 28 October 2026Teismai the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas dismissed a former company director's separate appealTeismai in case eAS-2686-662/2026Teismai and left in place the refusal to admit his complaint against the Registrų centrasTeismai: after bankruptcy proceedings open, the ex-director cannot litigate in the company's nameTeismai, and a dispute over a registrar-initiated liquidation does not belong in the administrative court at allTeismai. The ruling is final and not subject to appeal.Teismai

The complainant, identified as PRS1, is the former head of the mažoji bendrija "DV international"Teismai. The JAR registrar decided on 5 June 2023 to initiate the company's liquidation on the registrar's own initiativeTeismai, registering the legal status "inicijuojamas likvidavimas" by a system-generated JAR entry and publishing it on 6 June 2023 in electronic bulletin No 2023-157; a warning notice of 21 February 2023 had been sent by E. pristatymo to his home address and E. box and published on 24 February 2023. On 8 May 2024 the Kauno apygardos teismas opened the company's bankruptcy caseTeismai and appointed Jurgita Šileikienė as insolvency administrator; on 12 December 2025 it refused to join PRS1 to that case as an interested person. In June 2026 the Registrų centras answered his request for the liquidation file, refusing to recognise procedural defects and calling the procedure lawful, sufficient and proportionate; PRS1 asked the administrative court to annul both that answer and the 2023 initiation decision, or alternatively to order a fresh, individually reasoned decision examining real notification, milder measures and the company's actual activity, solvency and filings.

The Regionų administracinis teismas refused to admit the complaint on 8 July 2026Teismai, holding that only the insolvency administrator may represent a bankrupt company's interestsTeismai: under the Juridinių asmenų nemokumo įstatymas 56(1) and (2), the management bodies lose their powers when the bankruptcy order takes effectTeismai, and the administrator exercises them during the proceedings. The appellate panel agreed the complaint was rightly refused, but corrected the legal basis. The core of the dispute — the legality of a registrar-run liquidation procedureTeismai on Civilinis kodeksas 2.70(1) groundsTeismai — is essentially a civil dispute over the company's legal statusTeismai, which under the Specialiosios teisėjų kolegijos 2023 ruling T-42/2023 is heard by a general-competence court under civil procedure, not by the administrative courtTeismai. That is the ABTĮ 33(2)(1) ground for refusing a complaintTeismai, rather than the unauthorised-person ground the first instance cited.

The panel added that the June 2026 answer itself creates no rights or duties for PRS1 as an individualTeismai: it merely informed him that the warning had been duly sent and that the initiation's legal and factual basis had already been answered in December 2025. His complaint in substance attacks the liquidation's legality, not the answer's.Teismai The broader stakes he cites — a 2,485 Eur fine for allegedly failing to hand over assets and documents with enforcement against 2,937.60 Eur, a 72,023 Eur damages claim, intentional-bankruptcy proceedings and 13,480 Eur actio Pauliana claims against family members — do not turn an informational letter into a challengeable actTeismai; personal standing requires showing the contested act itself produces personal legal effectsTeismai.

Legal basis: the ruling applies ABTĮ 33(2)(1) and 154(1), Civilinis kodeksas 2.70(1), Juridinių asmenų nemokumo įstatymas 56(1)(2), and the Specialiosios teisėjų kolegijos 2023 ruling T-42/2023.