Personligt betalningsansvar för styrelseledamöter i aktiebolag - ett effektivt påtryckningsmedel eller en regel utan verkan?
(2017) JURM02 20171Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Uppsatsen behandlar reglerna om tvångslikvidation vid kritisk kapitalbrist och särskilt det personliga betalningsansvar, s.k. medansvar, som kan drabba styrelseledamöter i aktiebolag enligt 25 kap. 18 § ABL. Medansvaret innebär ett personligt och solidariskt ansvar som aktualiseras om styrelsen underlåter att agera enligt det handlingsschema som kapitalbristreglerna uppställer i 25 kap. 13–17 §§ ABL. Det uttryckliga syftet med medansvarsregeln är att verka som ett påtryckningsmedel för att få styrelsen att agera i enlighet med kapitalbristreglernas handlingsschema. Det övergripande syftet består i att utgöra ett tvingande borgenärsskydd.
Uppsatsens övergripande syfte är att utreda huruvida medansvaret förlorat sin funktion som... (More) - Uppsatsen behandlar reglerna om tvångslikvidation vid kritisk kapitalbrist och särskilt det personliga betalningsansvar, s.k. medansvar, som kan drabba styrelseledamöter i aktiebolag enligt 25 kap. 18 § ABL. Medansvaret innebär ett personligt och solidariskt ansvar som aktualiseras om styrelsen underlåter att agera enligt det handlingsschema som kapitalbristreglerna uppställer i 25 kap. 13–17 §§ ABL. Det uttryckliga syftet med medansvarsregeln är att verka som ett påtryckningsmedel för att få styrelsen att agera i enlighet med kapitalbristreglernas handlingsschema. Det övergripande syftet består i att utgöra ett tvingande borgenärsskydd.
Uppsatsens övergripande syfte är att utreda huruvida medansvaret förlorat sin funktion som påtryckningsmedel för att få styrelsen att agera enligt kapitalbristreglernas handlingsschema. Särskilt analyseras den påtryckande funktionen i ljuset av tre rättsfall på området – NJA 2012 s. 858, NJA 2013 s. 725 samt NJA 2014 s. 948. Dessa rättsfall har betydelse för såväl medansvarets uppkomst som påtryckningsfunktion. Kapitalbristreglerna har genom åren fått utså kritik av författare inom rättsvetenskapen med anledning av dess komplicerade utformning. Problematiken grundar sig dels i att medansvaret anses utgöra en långtgående sanktion med allvarliga konsekvenser för styrelseledamöter, dels i oklarheterna kring reglernas tillämpning som riskerar att leda till att reglerna missbrukas. Sammanfattningsvis är reglernas tillämpning oförutsebar i praktiken.
I uppsatsen diskuteras de olika stegen i kapitalbristreglernas handlingsschema med start i rekvisitet skäl att anta kritisk kapitalbrist enligt 25 kap. 13 § ABL, följt av en djupare redogörelse för medansvarets uppkomst, påtryckningsfunktion och framtidsutsikter. Utifrån uppsatsen kan det konstateras att kapitalbristreglerna ofta vållar svårigheter i praktiken. Svårigheterna består i att reglerna är vagt utformade med relativt vida tolkningsutrymmen som följd. Konsekvensen blir att rättsläget kring medansvaret på många punkter är oklart.
I uppsatsen konstateras att medansvarets funktion som påtryckningsmedel har minskat i effektivitet och således förlorat i styrka. Anledningen tycks främst vara den praxisutveckling som skett på området, men även att kapitalbristreglernas handlingsschema innehåller flertalet oklarheter. På många punkter skiljer sig vidare åsikterna åt mellan lagstiftaren, rättstillämparen och författare i doktrin. Ett förtydligande av de respektive stegen i handlingsschemat är önskvärt i de fall det finns möjlighet till detta, såväl i syfte att stärka påtryckningsfunktionen som att tydliggöra rättsläget och således öka förutsebarheten kring reglerna. Ett sådant förtydligande kan antingen ske genom lagstiftning, eller genom fler prejudicerande avgöranden. Avslutningsvis konstateras att medansvarets framtid är relativt osäker. På vissa punkter får reglernas position anses stärkta, på andra försvagade. Det återstår att se vilken framtid medansvaret går till mötes. (Less) - Abstract
- The essay concerns the regulations regarding compulsory liquidation due to critical capital deficiency, in particular the personal liability for payment, which can afflict board members in limited liability companies according to Chapter 25, section 18 in the Swedish Companies Act. The personal liability for payment imply a personal, joint and several liability which can be brought up to date if the board members omit to act according to the pattern of actions, outlined by the rules of capital deficiency in Chapter 25, section 13–17 in the Swedish Companies Act. The explicit purpose of the rule is to work as a means of exerting pressure, and force the board members to act according to the rules of capital deficiency. The overall purpose is... (More)
- The essay concerns the regulations regarding compulsory liquidation due to critical capital deficiency, in particular the personal liability for payment, which can afflict board members in limited liability companies according to Chapter 25, section 18 in the Swedish Companies Act. The personal liability for payment imply a personal, joint and several liability which can be brought up to date if the board members omit to act according to the pattern of actions, outlined by the rules of capital deficiency in Chapter 25, section 13–17 in the Swedish Companies Act. The explicit purpose of the rule is to work as a means of exerting pressure, and force the board members to act according to the rules of capital deficiency. The overall purpose is to protect the creditors in a mandatory way.
The main purpose of the essay is to investigate whether the personal liability of payment has lost its function as a means of exerting pressure. There are three legal cases analyzed in the light of this question – NJA 2012 p. 858, NJA 2013 p. 725 and NJA 2014 p. 948. These cases all have significance for the origin of personal liability, but also for the means of exerting pressure. The rules of capital deficiency have been criticized. The reason for this criticism is the complicated formation of the rules. The problem is based partly on the fact that the personal liability is a far-reaching sanction, which can result in severe consequences for board members, and partly on the vagueness about the application of the rules, which risks leading to a misuse. To sum up, the application of the rules is unforeseeable.
The different steps according to the pattern of actions, set by the rules of capital deficiency, are discussed by starting with reason to presume critical capital deficiency, stated in Chapter 25, section 13 in the Swedish Companies Act, followed by a review of the origin of personal liability, the means of exerting pressure and the rule’s future. The essay establishes that the regulation often causes problems. The difficulties to apply the rules are mainly because of the vague formation, which leaves a relative wide room for interpretation. The consequence is that the legal position is unclear.
In the essay it is established that the function of the personal liability as a means of exerting pressure has lost some of its power. The reason for this seems to be mainly because of the latest legislative development, but also the complications according to the different steps in the pattern of actions. Also, the opinions about the rules are rather different between the legislator, the court and authors of the legal science. A clarification of the rules, both to strengthen the rules function as a means of exerting pressure and to clarify the legal position is desirable. A clarifying could possibly take place by new legislation or case law. In conclusion the essay finds out that the future of the personal liability for payment is doubtful. In some ways the rule’s position is strengthened, in some ways undermined. It remains to be seen in which way the faith of the rules will lead. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8908916
- author
- Ringborg, Christine LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Personal liability for payment for board members in limited liability companies - an affective means of exerting pressure or a rule without power?
- course
- JURM02 20171
- year
- 2017
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- associationsrätt, civilrätt, medansvar, styrelseledamöter
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8908916
- date added to LUP
- 2017-06-16 15:56:40
- date last changed
- 2017-06-16 15:56:40
@misc{8908916,
abstract = {{The essay concerns the regulations regarding compulsory liquidation due to critical capital deficiency, in particular the personal liability for payment, which can afflict board members in limited liability companies according to Chapter 25, section 18 in the Swedish Companies Act. The personal liability for payment imply a personal, joint and several liability which can be brought up to date if the board members omit to act according to the pattern of actions, outlined by the rules of capital deficiency in Chapter 25, section 13–17 in the Swedish Companies Act. The explicit purpose of the rule is to work as a means of exerting pressure, and force the board members to act according to the rules of capital deficiency. The overall purpose is to protect the creditors in a mandatory way.
The main purpose of the essay is to investigate whether the personal liability of payment has lost its function as a means of exerting pressure. There are three legal cases analyzed in the light of this question – NJA 2012 p. 858, NJA 2013 p. 725 and NJA 2014 p. 948. These cases all have significance for the origin of personal liability, but also for the means of exerting pressure. The rules of capital deficiency have been criticized. The reason for this criticism is the complicated formation of the rules. The problem is based partly on the fact that the personal liability is a far-reaching sanction, which can result in severe consequences for board members, and partly on the vagueness about the application of the rules, which risks leading to a misuse. To sum up, the application of the rules is unforeseeable.
The different steps according to the pattern of actions, set by the rules of capital deficiency, are discussed by starting with reason to presume critical capital deficiency, stated in Chapter 25, section 13 in the Swedish Companies Act, followed by a review of the origin of personal liability, the means of exerting pressure and the rule’s future. The essay establishes that the regulation often causes problems. The difficulties to apply the rules are mainly because of the vague formation, which leaves a relative wide room for interpretation. The consequence is that the legal position is unclear.
In the essay it is established that the function of the personal liability as a means of exerting pressure has lost some of its power. The reason for this seems to be mainly because of the latest legislative development, but also the complications according to the different steps in the pattern of actions. Also, the opinions about the rules are rather different between the legislator, the court and authors of the legal science. A clarification of the rules, both to strengthen the rules function as a means of exerting pressure and to clarify the legal position is desirable. A clarifying could possibly take place by new legislation or case law. In conclusion the essay finds out that the future of the personal liability for payment is doubtful. In some ways the rule’s position is strengthened, in some ways undermined. It remains to be seen in which way the faith of the rules will lead.}},
author = {{Ringborg, Christine}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Personligt betalningsansvar för styrelseledamöter i aktiebolag - ett effektivt påtryckningsmedel eller en regel utan verkan?}},
year = {{2017}},
}