Advanced

Realisation av pantsatta aktier - Om pantlagstiftningen i allmänhet och bankers rätt att överta panter i synnerhet

Roth, Henric LU (2010) JURM01 20101
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Svensk pantlagstiftning har under lång tid i princip varit oförändrad. Några för panträtten centrala bestämmelser har över tiden hjälpligt fått anpassats till mer tidsenliga förutsättningar som de ursprungliga bestämmelserna inte varit utformade att hantera. Detta gäller inte bara tillämpningen av panträttslig lagstiftning utan även de rättsliga principer som omgärdar panträtten och fyller där en central och viktig funktion.

Idag råder en situation inom pantlagstiftningen där dess kärna i flera avseenden är ifrågasatt när det kommer till hur lagparagrafer ska tolkas och om de rentav ska betraktas som obsoleta. Det medför att aktörer som kommer i kontakt med panter kan känna en osäkerhet kring vilka rättigheter och skyldigheter de har... (More)
Svensk pantlagstiftning har under lång tid i princip varit oförändrad. Några för panträtten centrala bestämmelser har över tiden hjälpligt fått anpassats till mer tidsenliga förutsättningar som de ursprungliga bestämmelserna inte varit utformade att hantera. Detta gäller inte bara tillämpningen av panträttslig lagstiftning utan även de rättsliga principer som omgärdar panträtten och fyller där en central och viktig funktion.

Idag råder en situation inom pantlagstiftningen där dess kärna i flera avseenden är ifrågasatt när det kommer till hur lagparagrafer ska tolkas och om de rentav ska betraktas som obsoleta. Det medför att aktörer som kommer i kontakt med panter kan känna en osäkerhet kring vilka rättigheter och skyldigheter de har emot varandra.

Bankerna har, på grund av sina begränsningar i vilken egendom de får äga, underkastas särskilda regler kring hur de kan förvärva eller överta panter i samband med att en realisation av panten görs. Lagstiftningen visar sig dock kunna ifrågasättas som ofullständig om den nagelfars mer noggrant. Lagstiftarens formuleringar rörande bankers pantrealisationer är i vissa avseenden oklar och förarbetena för endast ytliga resonemang om hur och när en realisation kan göras. Exempelvis framgår det inte vad som ska anses utgöra en risk för en avsevärd förlust för bankerna. Problemet bottnar även delvis i att det i händelse av en pantrealisation inte går att falla tillbaka på en tidsenligt anpassad allmän pantlagstiftning om ett pantavtal inte täcker in en viss omständighet. Det försvårar ytterligare hanteringen av panter i allmänhet men även vid pantrealisationer inom ramen för bankrörelser och risken för att framförallt en svagare part drabbas negativt ökar.

Bristen på vägledande rättsfall förstärker ytterligare osäkerheten. Vidare gör avsaknaden av en uppdaterad lagstiftning det svårt för domstolarna att avgöra om dispositiva pantavtal är skäliga då referenser saknas.. Ett talande exempel som varit uppe till livlig diskussion på senare år är hur traditionsprincipen skall tillämpas. Inte minst HD har varit drivande i den diskussionen och anser idag att det är en rådighetsavskärning som ska till för att traditionen ska anses fullbordad. Domstolsväsendet har i viss utsträckning självt försökt anpassa de åldriga paragraferna och principerna till ett mer modernt förhållningssätt. HD har argumenterat för att principen helt ska avskaffas men kräver att ett sådant steg har stöd i lag. Effekterna av att osäkra rättsförutsättningar idag råder är svåra att uppskatta. En lagöversyn rörande pantlagstiftningen skulle kunna ta upp dessa frågor till behandling i syfte att få fram ett effektivare och tydligare pantinstitut som resultat. Dock kan bristen på vägledande rättsfall också anses vara ett tecken på att aktörer som använder sig av panter anser att systemet fungerar bra.

För bankernas del är det främst hur en realisation genom ett övertagande får gå till som kan ifrågasättas. Här är det framförallt rekvisiten i 7 kap 3 och 6 §§ Lagen om bank- och finansieringsrörelse som är svagt underbyggda.

Under den senaste finanskrisen har även frågan om hur en värdering vid en pantrealisation ska gå till varit uppe för livlig diskussion. Frågan har i synnerhet aktualiserats när det handlat om en banks övertagande av en pant. Inte minst har aktieägare i ett moderbolag, som indirekt drabbats ekonomiskt när realisation skett av ett dotterbolag, i vissa fall livligt protesterat mot hur värderingen av på bolaget har fastställts. Värderingsfrågan är därför viktig att hantera men banklagstiftningen har inte alls tagit upp frågan i pantrealisationssammanhang.

Slutsatsen blir enligt min mening, att även här drabbas aktörerna på kreditmarknaden av en oklar lagstiftning då tvister uppstår som troligen kunnat undvikas med tydligare lagformuleringar. Enda området där EU mer övergripande hanterat säkerheter rör noterade finansiella instrument där aktier ingår. Harmoniseringen har i princip klarlagt hur en realisation av dessa instrument får gå till.

Den på flera sätt oklara pantlagstiftningen har resulterat i att marknaden till viss del lämnats åt sitt öde genom att dispositiva avtal får konstrueras. Här har bankerna varit tongivande eftersom de har mest erfarenhet av kredit- och pantavtal. Utvecklingen av en sedvänja där bankerna ges så pass mycket att säga till om utan att referenser till vad lagstiftaren anser vara norm för hur ett balanserat pantavtal ska se ut gör det svårt för en motpart till bankerna att avgöra om kraven de måste ställa upp på är skäliga och rimliga. (Less)
Abstract
Swedish law regarding pledges has more or less remained the same for a substantial period of time. Some of the central principles concerning pledges have over time needed to adapt to more modern situations that the law are not designed to handle. This does not only concern the application of the written laws but also the legal principles that surround the law on pledges where they aim to serve a central and important role.

Today, the situation concerning the law on pledges is in a place where its core in several regards is questioned when it comes to how paragraphs should be interpreted or if they maybe should be considered obsolete. The outcome of this is that a party who come into contact with the Swedish legal system on pledges... (More)
Swedish law regarding pledges has more or less remained the same for a substantial period of time. Some of the central principles concerning pledges have over time needed to adapt to more modern situations that the law are not designed to handle. This does not only concern the application of the written laws but also the legal principles that surround the law on pledges where they aim to serve a central and important role.

Today, the situation concerning the law on pledges is in a place where its core in several regards is questioned when it comes to how paragraphs should be interpreted or if they maybe should be considered obsolete. The outcome of this is that a party who come into contact with the Swedish legal system on pledges might feel an uncertainty when it comes to knowing what rights or obligations they might have against other parties.

Banks have, due to the limitations of what kind of property they are allowed to hold, been subject to certain rules and regulations regarding how they can acquire or take over pledges that are subject to a realization. However, the law concerning these matters can be questioned as incomplete when scrutinized. The legislator’s wording regarding banks realization of pledges is somewhat unclear and the proposition to the law in question is only supplying shallow instructions to how and when a realization can take place. For example, the law does not state what the risk for a substantial loss for the banks should constitute. The problem is also partly due to the fact that if a pledge agreement fails to handle a certain circumstance regarding a realization, the law on pledges does not provide a clear alternative to fill out the agreement. This further complicates the handling of pledges in general but it does also affect realizations made by banks. The outcome of this is that mainly weaker parties may be affected in a negative way.

The lack of court cases on this subject enhances the uncertainty even more. In addition, the present laws make it more difficult for the courts to decide if a pledge agreement between two parties should be considered tolerable compared to what the legislator would consider as a balanced agreement. The court system has tried to adapt the present laws and principles to a more modern view on pledges. A colorful example of this that has been up for a lively discussion in recent years is how the principle of tradition should be applied. The Supreme Court has been the driving factor here. The Supreme Court’s opinion is that it is whether the pledger’s access to the pledge has been cut off or not, that is the key circumstance when deciding if the tradition has been fore filled. The Supreme Court argues that the principle should be completely removed but states that they are still bound by the law as it is and is therefore unable to take such action. The effects of these legal uncertainties are difficult to appreciate. A legislator review of the law on pledges could evaluate the flaws and weaknesses it contains with a more effective and clear system as an outcome. However, the lack of court cases could constitute as an argument stating that the system works just fine.
When it comes to the banks, it is mainly how a realization of a pledge thru a takeover is executed that can be questioned. It is mainly the requisites in 7th chapter 3rd and 6th §§ Law on bank and financial businesses that are weakly supported.

The latest financial crisis has also brought up the question of how pledges, mainly securities such as shares, should have their valued estimated in case of a realization. Shareholders in parent companies, that indirectly suffer an economic loss when a realization has taken place of a subsidiary, have in some cases protested intensely against how a valuation has been executed. The question of valuation is therefore important to manage but the Law on bank and financial businesses does not mention anything about this issue regarding realizations.

My conclusion is that the actors on the credit market are affected by an uncertain legislation where litigations that emerge likely could have been avoided with a more clear legislation regarding pledges. The only area where the European Union has regulated the managing of securities concerns financial instruments that are traded on a stock exchange market. The harmonization has in principle clarified how a realization of these instruments may take place.

As a result of the legislation on pledges being unclear, the credit market has become dependent of pledge agreements constructed by the parties themselves. The banks have been given a lot of room to shape these agreements in a way that is beneficial to them since they are most active on these types of markets. The development of a custom where the banks are given as much discretion without a legislation that can be used as a measuring stick when it comes to deciding what the legislator think a balanced security agreement should look like, makes it hard for the opposite party to evaluate if the terms and condition they have to agree to is reasonable. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Roth, Henric LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM01 20101
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Bankrätt, Sakrätt
language
Swedish
id
1628173
date added to LUP
2010-07-14 10:50:23
date last changed
2010-07-14 10:50:23
@misc{1628173,
  abstract     = {Swedish law regarding pledges has more or less remained the same for a substantial period of time. Some of the central principles concerning pledges have over time needed to adapt to more modern situations that the law are not designed to handle. This does not only concern the application of the written laws but also the legal principles that surround the law on pledges where they aim to serve a central and important role.  

Today, the situation concerning the law on pledges is in a place where its core in several regards is questioned when it comes to how paragraphs should be interpreted or if they maybe should be considered obsolete. The outcome of this is that a party who come into contact with the Swedish legal system on pledges might feel an uncertainty when it comes to knowing what rights or obligations they might have against other parties.

Banks have, due to the limitations of what kind of property they are allowed to hold, been subject to certain rules and regulations regarding how they can acquire or take over pledges that are subject to a realization. However, the law concerning these matters can be questioned as incomplete when scrutinized. The legislator’s wording regarding banks realization of pledges is somewhat unclear and the proposition to the law in question is only supplying shallow instructions to how and when a realization can take place. For example, the law does not state what the risk for a substantial loss for the banks should constitute. The problem is also partly due to the fact that if a pledge agreement fails to handle a certain circumstance regarding a realization, the law on pledges does not provide a clear alternative to fill out the agreement. This further complicates the handling of pledges in general but it does also affect realizations made by banks. The outcome of this is that mainly weaker parties may be affected in a negative way.

The lack of court cases on this subject enhances the uncertainty even more. In addition, the present laws make it more difficult for the courts to decide if a pledge agreement between two parties should be considered tolerable compared to what the legislator would consider as a balanced agreement. The court system has tried to adapt the present laws and principles to a more modern view on pledges. A colorful example of this that has been up for a lively discussion in recent years is how the principle of tradition should be applied. The Supreme Court has been the driving factor here. The Supreme Court’s opinion is that it is whether the pledger’s access to the pledge has been cut off or not, that is the key circumstance when deciding if the tradition has been fore filled. The Supreme Court argues that the principle should be completely removed but states that they are still bound by the law as it is and is therefore unable to take such action. The effects of these legal uncertainties are difficult to appreciate. A legislator review of the law on pledges could evaluate the flaws and weaknesses it contains with a more effective and clear system as an outcome. However, the lack of court cases could constitute as an argument stating that the system works just fine.
When it comes to the banks, it is mainly how a realization of a pledge thru a takeover is executed that can be questioned. It is mainly the requisites in 7th chapter 3rd and 6th §§ Law on bank and financial businesses that are weakly supported. 

The latest financial crisis has also brought up the question of how pledges, mainly securities such as shares, should have their valued estimated in case of a realization. Shareholders in parent companies, that indirectly suffer an economic loss when a realization has taken place of a subsidiary, have in some cases protested intensely against how a valuation has been executed. The question of valuation is therefore important to manage but the Law on bank and financial businesses does not mention anything about this issue regarding realizations.

My conclusion is that the actors on the credit market are affected by an uncertain legislation where litigations that emerge likely could have been avoided with a more clear legislation regarding pledges. The only area where the European Union has regulated the managing of securities concerns financial instruments that are traded on a stock exchange market. The harmonization has in principle clarified how a realization of these instruments may take place.

As a result of the legislation on pledges being unclear, the credit market has become dependent of pledge agreements constructed by the parties themselves. The banks have been given a lot of room to shape these agreements in a way that is beneficial to them since they are most active on these types of markets. The development of a custom where the banks are given as much discretion without a legislation that can be used as a measuring stick when it comes to deciding what the legislator think a balanced security agreement should look like, makes it hard for the opposite party to evaluate if the terms and condition they have to agree to is reasonable.},
  author       = {Roth, Henric},
  keyword      = {Bankrätt,Sakrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Realisation av pantsatta aktier - Om pantlagstiftningen i allmänhet och bankers rätt att överta panter i synnerhet},
  year         = {2010},
}