Corporate / M&A

Bulgaria: Self-Dealing Restrictions on Companies Represented by Identical Directors

The Bulgarian Supreme Court issued two contradictory judgments in the summer of 2012.

The restric­tion of self-deal­ing is known to all mod­ern legal sys­tems. In Bul­gar­ia it is reg­u­lat­ed by Arti­cle 38 of the Oblig­a­tions and Con­tracts Act, which pro­hibits a proxy from enter­ing into con­tracts with itself or anoth­er per­son rep­re­sent­ed by the proxy. If a con­tract is exe­cut­ed in vio­la­tion of this rule, the rep­re­sent­ed per­son may still con­firm it. With­out this con­fir­ma­tion, the con­tract is null and void.

Self-dealing in corporate law

The main prob­lem is how this restric­tion should be inter­pret­ed in cor­po­rate law; that is, whether a man­ag­ing direc­tor may enter into con­tracts with anoth­er com­pa­ny rep­re­sent­ed by the same man­ag­ing direc­tor. This sit­u­a­tion is quite com­mon, for exam­ple, in hold­ing struc­tures.

Until the sum­mer of 2012, there were con­tra­dic­to­ry opin­ions in the Bul­gar­i­an legal the­o­ry and jurispru­dence, but the pre­vail­ing view was that such con­tracts were valid. Nev­er­the­less, sev­er­al Supreme Court of Cas­sa­tion (SCC) judg­ments held that such con­tracts were invalid.

On 13 June 2012, the SCC issued a judg­ment (No. 176 on com­mer­cial case 1078 from 2010) stat­ing that a con­tract between two lim­it­ed lia­bil­i­ty com­pa­nies (OOD) rep­re­sent­ed by the same man­ag­ing direc­tor was invalid. The judg­ment also stat­ed that it would not be pos­si­ble to con­firm such con­tract at a lat­er stage because the pos­si­bil­i­ty for con­fir­ma­tion does not apply in the case of a lim­it­ed lia­bil­i­ty com­pa­ny. This judg­ment is con­trary to a judg­ment in a sim­i­lar case decid­ed by the SCC (Judge­ment No. 99 issued on 1 July 2009 on com­mer­cial case 713 from 2008).

More confusion

One month after the above judg­ment, anoth­er depart­ment of the SCC issued a new judg­ment on this top­ic (Judge­ment No 37 issued on 26 July 2012 on com­mer­cial case No. 475 from 2011). This time the con­tract was signed between two joint stock com­pa­nies (AD), which were also rep­re­sent­ed by the same man­ag­ing direc­tor. In this case, how­ev­er, the court held the con­tract valid because, with a joint stock com­pa­ny, the Board of Direc­tors may con­firm the con­tract.


Based on these lat­est two SCC judg­ments:

  1. A con­tract signed between two lim­it­ed lia­bil­i­ty com­pa­nies (OOD) rep­re­sent­ed by the same man­ag­ing direc­tor is null and void and can­not be con­firmed at a lat­er stage, even by the Share­hold­ers Meet­ing.
  2. A con­tract between a lim­it­ed lia­bil­i­ty com­pa­ny (OOD) and a joint stock com­pa­ny (AD) rep­re­sent­ed by the same man­ag­ing direc­tor is also null and void, even if con­firmed by the Board of Direc­tors of the joint stock com­pa­ny.
  3. A con­tract signed by two joint stock com­pa­nies (AD) rep­re­sent­ed by the same man­ag­ing direc­tor is valid if the Board of Direc­tors of each joint stock com­pa­ny has con­firmed it.

Not helpful

The above con­clu­sions are not very help­ful to busi­ness­es and may endan­ger the valid­i­ty of many trans­ac­tions exe­cut­ed under the SCC’s old inter­pre­ta­tion of the issue. The SCC should thus issue an explana­to­ry judg­ment (which would bind all courts, includ­ing the dif­fer­ent depart­ments of the SCC). Or the leg­is­la­tor should pass spe­cial reg­u­la­tions in the Com­mer­cial Act.

The above con­tra­dic­to­ry judg­ments are a stark exam­ple of the con­tin­u­ing lack of judi­cial con­sis­ten­cy in Bul­gar­ia. The Euro­pean Com­mis­sion under­lined this prob­lem in its 2012 Report of the Progress in Bul­gar­ia under the Coop­er­a­tion and Ver­i­fi­ca­tion Mech­a­nism. The Com­mis­sion empha­sised that the SCC must “iden­ti­fy and address incon­sis­tent inter­pre­ta­tion of the law in all rel­e­vant areas”.

These conclusions are not very helpful to businesses and may endanger the validity of many transactions executed under the SCC’s old interpretation of the issue.

roadmap 13
schoenherr attorneys at law /