Ansvarsgenombrott - Om ansvarsgenombrottsinstitutet i svensk rätt
(2017) LAGF03 20172Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- En av de mest fundamentala principerna inom den svenska aktiebolagsrätten är det begränsade personliga ansvaret som stadgas i 1 kap. 3 § ABL. Innebörden av regeln är att aktieägare som huvudregel endast svarar för tillskjutet kapital. Tack vare ansvarsbegränsningen har investeringar i riskfyllda affärsprojekt möjliggjorts.
Från huvudregeln finns dock vissa lagstadgade associationsrättsliga bestämmelser som ålägger aktieägare ett utökat ansvar i vissa situationer. Dessa regler riktar sig framförallt mot aktieägare som deltar i ett beslut om att fortsätta driften av aktiebolaget trots vetskapen att bolaget är skyldigt att gå i likvidation.
En anmärkningsvärd företeelse i svensk rätt är det utökade aktieägaransvar som ålagts aktieägare... (More) - En av de mest fundamentala principerna inom den svenska aktiebolagsrätten är det begränsade personliga ansvaret som stadgas i 1 kap. 3 § ABL. Innebörden av regeln är att aktieägare som huvudregel endast svarar för tillskjutet kapital. Tack vare ansvarsbegränsningen har investeringar i riskfyllda affärsprojekt möjliggjorts.
Från huvudregeln finns dock vissa lagstadgade associationsrättsliga bestämmelser som ålägger aktieägare ett utökat ansvar i vissa situationer. Dessa regler riktar sig framförallt mot aktieägare som deltar i ett beslut om att fortsätta driften av aktiebolaget trots vetskapen att bolaget är skyldigt att gå i likvidation.
En anmärkningsvärd företeelse i svensk rätt är det utökade aktieägaransvar som ålagts aktieägare enligt principer om så kallat ansvarsgenombrott. Principerna kring detta utökade personliga ansvar har utvecklats i rättspraxis och det saknas författningstext som reglerar situationen. Det finns en omfattande diskussion inom doktrinen kring ansvarsgenombrott. HD visar på en ovilja att tydligt formulera sina domskäl och klart markera var gränsen går för när den juridiska personens skyddsbehov upphör. Det råder därför en osäkerhet kring när ansvarsgenombrott faktiskt kan aktualiseras. Ansvarsgenombrott har vidare varit föremål för utredning vid ett flertal tillfällen men det finns idag ingen lagstiftning som reglerar situationen. Denna framställning behandlar ansvarsgenombrottsinstitutet i svensk rätt och berör de situationer då aktieägare åläggs ett personligt ansvar utan stöd i ABL.
I äldre rättspraxis har man framförallt fokuserat på tre rekvisit: osjälvständighetsrekvisitet, otillbörlighetsrekvisitet samt underkapitaliseringsrekvisitet. Med anledning av nyare praxis finns dock skäl att diskutera relevansen av äldre rättspraxis eftersom det finns vissa som menar att denna är utdaterad. Det finns även vissa som anser att dessa rekvisit inte alls har utgjort gällande rätt utan att ansvarsgenombrottet baserar sig på andra rättsliga normer.
Med stöd av HD:s avgöranden tillsammans med diskussionen i doktrin kommer framställningen att söka kartlägga hur det svenska ansvarsgenombrottet ser ut samt varför den svenska rättsordningen saknar lagstadgade regler kring fenomenet. (Less) - Abstract
- One of the most fundamental principles of the Swedish company law is the limitation of the shareholders’ liability to his or her capital contribution as stated in chapter 1. Article 3 in the Swedish Companies Act. Due to the limited liability of the shareholders, investments in hazardous buisnesses have been facilitated.
Furthermore, Swedish statute law provides an expanded liability for shareholders in certain situations. These statutory rules primarily target a shareholder who actively supports a course where the company continues its operations even though the company is obliged by law to enter into liquidation. Swedish law also provides a somewhat controversial phenomenon with regard to the fact that shareholders in certain situations... (More) - One of the most fundamental principles of the Swedish company law is the limitation of the shareholders’ liability to his or her capital contribution as stated in chapter 1. Article 3 in the Swedish Companies Act. Due to the limited liability of the shareholders, investments in hazardous buisnesses have been facilitated.
Furthermore, Swedish statute law provides an expanded liability for shareholders in certain situations. These statutory rules primarily target a shareholder who actively supports a course where the company continues its operations even though the company is obliged by law to enter into liquidation. Swedish law also provides a somewhat controversial phenomenon with regard to the fact that shareholders in certain situations have been inflicted with expanded liability for the obligations of the company according to principles of liability breach or the piercing of the corporate veil. These principles have been developed in case law and there is no statutory law regulating the phenomenon.
There is a comprehensive discussion within the legal doctrine regarding the principles of the liability breach. The Supreme Court of Sweden shows an unwillingness to clearly formulate its reasons for its judgements regarding the piercing of the corporate veil and expresses a reluctancy to clearly state where the boundaries of the legal persons’ protection need to be ceased. Therefore, there is an uncertainty about when the piercing of the corporate veil can be applied in Swedish law. The liability breach has been subject to enquiry from legislators, but these efforts have not resulted in legislation. This essay will examine the liability breach institute in Swedish law and the situations when shareholders are subject to personal liability without the support in the Swedish Companies Act.
In older case law, the main focus has been on three prerequisites; lack of independence, improper use of the Swedish Company Act and undercapitalization. However, with guidance from recent cases from The Supreme Court of Sweden, there is reason to discuss the relevance of older case law as some scholars believe it to be outdated. Other
scholars consider these it not to involve the piercing of the corporate veil but rather that these judgements are based on other legal norms.
Based on the relevant Supreme Court decisions and together with the legal doctrine, this essay will seek to clarify how and when piercing of the corporate veil can be actualized, as well as find out why the Swedish legal system lacks statutory rules about the expanded liability for shareholders in these situations. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8929784
- author
- Ahlberg, William LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20172
- year
- 2017
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Associationsrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8929784
- date added to LUP
- 2018-02-06 12:02:24
- date last changed
- 2018-02-06 12:02:24
@misc{8929784,
abstract = {{One of the most fundamental principles of the Swedish company law is the limitation of the shareholders’ liability to his or her capital contribution as stated in chapter 1. Article 3 in the Swedish Companies Act. Due to the limited liability of the shareholders, investments in hazardous buisnesses have been facilitated.
Furthermore, Swedish statute law provides an expanded liability for shareholders in certain situations. These statutory rules primarily target a shareholder who actively supports a course where the company continues its operations even though the company is obliged by law to enter into liquidation. Swedish law also provides a somewhat controversial phenomenon with regard to the fact that shareholders in certain situations have been inflicted with expanded liability for the obligations of the company according to principles of liability breach or the piercing of the corporate veil. These principles have been developed in case law and there is no statutory law regulating the phenomenon.
There is a comprehensive discussion within the legal doctrine regarding the principles of the liability breach. The Supreme Court of Sweden shows an unwillingness to clearly formulate its reasons for its judgements regarding the piercing of the corporate veil and expresses a reluctancy to clearly state where the boundaries of the legal persons’ protection need to be ceased. Therefore, there is an uncertainty about when the piercing of the corporate veil can be applied in Swedish law. The liability breach has been subject to enquiry from legislators, but these efforts have not resulted in legislation. This essay will examine the liability breach institute in Swedish law and the situations when shareholders are subject to personal liability without the support in the Swedish Companies Act.
In older case law, the main focus has been on three prerequisites; lack of independence, improper use of the Swedish Company Act and undercapitalization. However, with guidance from recent cases from The Supreme Court of Sweden, there is reason to discuss the relevance of older case law as some scholars believe it to be outdated. Other
scholars consider these it not to involve the piercing of the corporate veil but rather that these judgements are based on other legal norms.
Based on the relevant Supreme Court decisions and together with the legal doctrine, this essay will seek to clarify how and when piercing of the corporate veil can be actualized, as well as find out why the Swedish legal system lacks statutory rules about the expanded liability for shareholders in these situations.}},
author = {{Ahlberg, William}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Ansvarsgenombrott - Om ansvarsgenombrottsinstitutet i svensk rätt}},
year = {{2017}},
}