Today we highlight the recent Ruling no. 1492\/2024 of the Supreme Court dated 11 November 2024, due to its undeniable relevance, in which it ratifies that the limitation period of the liability action for debts cannot be that contemplated in article 241 bis LSC, but rather that of the guaranteed debt itself, as previously determined in its Ruling no. 1512\/2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court argues that the time limit provided for in this article is only applicable to the corporate action and the individual action for liability. It also states that the Chapter and Title in which Articles 241 bis and 367 LSC are included are different, the former being in Chapter V (The liability of directors), of Title VI (The administration of the company) of the LSC; while the latter is inserted in Chapter I (Dissolution Section 2a (Dissolution due to legal or statutory grounds), of Title X (Dissolution and liquidation).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It also reasons that individual and social actions are typical actions for damages; on the other hand, liability for debts has its own presuppositions. In this regard, it should be recalled that the Supreme Court itself has already determined in its Judgment no. 586\/2023, among others, that this action was configured as a liability for the debt of others and ex lege.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Therefore, in this interesting Judgment of 11 November 2024, it confirms that (i) the action for liability for debts has the same limitation period as the guaranteed debt; (ii) as it is an individual solidarity, the same interruptive effects of the limitation period are applicable to the administrator as are applicable to the company; and (iii) the dies a quo of the limitation period of the action against the administrator is the same as that of the action against the company.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Hoy destacamos la reciente Sentencia n\u00ba 1492\/2024 del Tribunal Supremo de fecha 11 de noviembre de 2024, por su innegable relevancia, en la que se viene a ratificar que el plazo de prescripci\u00f3n de la acci\u00f3n de responsabilidad por deudas no puede ser el contemplado en el art\u00edculo 241 bis LSC, sino el de la […]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":11588,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[708],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11584","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-actualidad-despacho"],"yoast_head":"\n