Another Ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania in the Dispute between UVS and Penki kontinentai

Today the Supreme Court of Lithuania (the Court) has rejected the complaint by Universalios valdymo sistemos UAB (UVS) group and made this final rejection not subject to appeal. The case disputed the effect of minutes taken in the meeting of  Kriptonika UAB shareholders as early as in 2005.

As the disputed minutes’ show, shareholders of Kriptonika, i. e. UVS and Penki kontinentai (PK), each holding 50% of the company share capital, established a quantitative representation regarding company manager Mr. Sviridovas. He was then obliged to agree with PK on any action taken in the name of Kriptonika.

Mr. Sviridovas, who also happened to be both a shareholder and a manager of UVS, attended the said meeting and brought no objections to the resolution passed by the shareholders. However, he subsequently started denying this and took steps inconsistent with the interests of PK. He also brought an appeal in court, disputing the effect of the minutes of UVS.

Both Vilnius City 2nd District Court and subsequently Vilnius County Court rejected the lawsuit by UVS. The final ruling of the Court, which is not subject to appeal, upheld judgments by lower courts.

According to Mr. Žilionis, a PK press representative, “Kriptonika, headed by Mr. Sviridovas, was a defendant in the court proceeding; however, it also concurred with the position of the plaintiff. That supports the conclusion that Mr. Sviridovas acted in the interests of UVS, i.e. just one of the shareholders, excluding those of Kriptonika”.

According to his view, such allegations are also supported by the fact that in the settled case Kriptonika was represented by Bernotas ir Dominas Glimstedt Law Firm, which also represents UVS. As Mr. Žilionis puts it, “This is by no means the first instance where lawyers of this law firm, in case of related disputes, actually appear in the position of both the plaintiff and the defendant”.

The Court shall shortly deliver a ruling in another case with UVS and PK as the parties. It concerns the issue of whether the statutes of Kriptonika, submitted for registration with the Centre of Registers by Mr. Sviridovas, reflect the will of the shareholders of Kriptonika.