No suspension without prejudicial link, appeal court tells Finiens case

The Šiaulių apygardos teismas, hearing the case in the name of the Vilniaus apygardos teismas, annulled the 22 September 2026 suspensionTeismai of the UAB Rentopa claim against the liquidated UAB Finiens and advocate P. V.Teismai and ordered the contract-validity dispute to proceedTeismai. The ruling of 11 November 2026Teismai rejects the request to keep civil case No. e2-30709-1195/2026 frozen until a final decision in the bankruptcy court's expense-estimate case No. eB2-2773-794/2026Teismai.

Rentopa asks the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismasTeismai to declare void ab initio the 9 December 2025 legal-services contract No. 251209-01Teismai between LUAB Finiens, represented by the administrator UAB Ius Positivum, and P. V.Teismai Its case is that the contract was concluded between related, dishonest persons without selecting counsel, at a price far above other advocates, to shrink the estate at the creditors' expense.Teismai The first-instance court suspended that case because the bankruptcy court's 4 September 2026 ruling on the administrator's complaint against the 29 June 2026 creditors' meeting decisionsTeismai refusing the administration-expense estimate, including the legal-services line under the disputed contractTeismai, was still not final.Teismai By the 4 September 2026 ruling the bankruptcy court confirmed property-maintenance costs capped at EUR 5,000 plus VAT per monthTeismai and office and commercial-activity costs at EUR 500 plus VAT per monthTeismai, but refused the legal-services amount for want of objective data even on its preliminary monthly scopeTeismai. That ruling was still not final when suspension was ordered.Teismai

The appeal court holds that mandatory suspension under Article 163(1)(3) of the Civilinio proceso kodeksas requires a direct prejudicial linkTeismai: facts established in the other case must carry evidentiary or prejudicial binding force for the decision in the suspended case, and the deciding court must be unable to establish them itselfTeismai. That link is missing here.Teismai The bankruptcy case decides whether the legal-services expenditure is necessary and justified for confirmation in the expense estimate under Article 75 of the Juridinių asmenų nemokumo įstatymasTeismai, not the circumstances in which the fee contract was concluded or whether it was fairTeismai. The validity of the transaction falls under Articles 1.81 and 6.66 of the Civilinis kodeksas, a different subject of proof.Teismai Every fact relevant to validity can and must be established by the court hearing the nullity claim itself, rather than delegated to the bankruptcy court.Teismai

Rentopa's circularity point was that the bankruptcy court had refused the legal-services price because the fee contract is disputed in the suspended case, so waiting for its final word before judging validity would freeze both casesTeismai; the appeal court agrees there is no prejudicial link either wayTeismai. The appeals pending against the 4 September 2026 ruling concern other estimate lines, and the possibility that an appellate court finds absolute nullity grounds for the whole ruling does not turn the expense dispute into a prejudicial one for the nullity claimTeismai.

Suspension delays proceedings and must not be applied formally; the right to a hearing within the shortest possible time requires the court to verify a real obstacle in each caseTeismai. The suspension is therefore annulled and the request to suspend is refusedTeismai under Articles 329(1), 337(1)(2) and 338 of the Civilinio proceso kodeksasTeismai. The ruling takes effect on adoption.Teismai

Legal basis: Civilinio proceso kodeksas Articles 163(1)(3), 329(1), 337(1)(2), 338 and 339; Juridinių asmenų nemokumo įstatymas Article 75; Civilinis kodeksas Articles 1.81 and 6.66Teismai.