Advanced

Moderbolags ansvar för dotterbolags skulder - Varför finns det ingen lagstiftning om ansvarsgenombrott i Sverige?

Johansson, Filip LU (2012) HARH10 20121
Department of Business Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Under de senaste årtionden har företagsformen aktiebolagsrätt varit en mycket populär form att bedriva näringsverksamhet på, detta såväl internationellt som nationellt. Det mest karakteristiska draget för aktiebolag är det begränsande ansvaret. Det begränsade ansvaret innebär att en aktieägare som huvudregel inte riskerar mer en det satsade kapitalet. Den privata förmögenhetsmassan är således skild från bolagets tillgångar. Huvudregeln gällande det begränsande ansvaret kan dock under särskilda omständigheter upphöra och aktieägaren tvingas då svara för bolagets skulder. I Sverige har frågan om ansvarsgenombrott endast ställt till sin spets ett antal gånger, torts detta har tolkningen kring ansvarsgenombrott väckt mångas intresse då den... (More)
Under de senaste årtionden har företagsformen aktiebolagsrätt varit en mycket populär form att bedriva näringsverksamhet på, detta såväl internationellt som nationellt. Det mest karakteristiska draget för aktiebolag är det begränsande ansvaret. Det begränsade ansvaret innebär att en aktieägare som huvudregel inte riskerar mer en det satsade kapitalet. Den privata förmögenhetsmassan är således skild från bolagets tillgångar. Huvudregeln gällande det begränsande ansvaret kan dock under särskilda omständigheter upphöra och aktieägaren tvingas då svara för bolagets skulder. I Sverige har frågan om ansvarsgenombrott endast ställt till sin spets ett antal gånger, torts detta har tolkningen kring ansvarsgenombrott väckt mångas intresse då den berör en känslig punkt. Trots ett antal svenska lagstiftningsförsök så finns det emellertid ingen lagstiftning som klargör när ansvarsgenombrott kan bli aktuellt. I Sverige har det aldrig förekommit någon särskild lagstiftning för koncernbolag, man har istället låtit koncerner fall in under aktiebolagslagen. Detta får till följd att vi i Sverige valt att betrakta ett moderbolag utifrån samma premisser som en aktieägare. Syftet med denna uppsats är att finna svaret på varför vi i Sverige inte har någon lagstiftning som reglerar när moderbolag (aktieägare) kan bli ansvarigt, med andra ord, varför har vi i Sverige ingen lagstiftning som reglerar när det kan bli aktuellt med ansvarsgenombrott inom en koncern?
För att finna svar på denna fråga har jag studerat relevant doktrin och praxis samt även gjort en komparativ utblick mot främst Tyskland där man valt att lösa problemet med en särskild koncernbolagsstiftning.
Jag har under detta arbete kommit fram till att det finns ett antal faktorer som medfört avsaknaden av lagstiftning.
1) Den stora formuleringsproblematiken som genomsyrat stora delar av de lag förslag för diskuteras.
2) Det svenska synsättet kring koncerner, där vi i Sverige har valt en ståndpunkt där vi betraktar bolag inom samma koncern som fristående från varandra.
3) Det minskade behovet av lagstiftning som påtalats vid utredningar under den senaste tiden. (Less)
Abstract
In recent decades, the form of limited company has been a very popular way to conduct business on, this both international and national. The most characteristic feature for the limted company is the limited liability. The limited liability means that shareholders as a rule do not risk more than the invested capital. The private furtune is thus seperated from the company's assets. The general rule regarding the limiting liability may under special circumstances cease, and the shareholders are then forced to answer for the debts of the company. In Sweden, the issue of piercing the corporate veil has only been put to a test few times but it raises a lot of interest since it touches upon a very delicate issue. Despite a few swedish legislation... (More)
In recent decades, the form of limited company has been a very popular way to conduct business on, this both international and national. The most characteristic feature for the limted company is the limited liability. The limited liability means that shareholders as a rule do not risk more than the invested capital. The private furtune is thus seperated from the company's assets. The general rule regarding the limiting liability may under special circumstances cease, and the shareholders are then forced to answer for the debts of the company. In Sweden, the issue of piercing the corporate veil has only been put to a test few times but it raises a lot of interest since it touches upon a very delicate issue. Despite a few swedish legislation attemps are there still no legislation that clarifies when a piercing of the coporate veil situation may occur.

In Sweden there has never been any special legislation for groups, as a result they have fallen into the companies act. As a consequence we in Sweden have chosen to consider a parent company on the same premises as a shareholder
The purpose of this essay is to find out why we in Sweden doesn´t have any legislation regulating when a parent company (shareholder) may be responsible, in other words, why don´t we in Sweden have any legislation governing when there is a possibility of piercing the corporate veil in a group?
In order to find the answer to this question I have studied relevant doctrine and practice and done a comparative outlook primarily towards Germany where they have chosen to solve the problem with a particular group companies legislation.
I have during the work with this essey found out that there are a number of factors that led to the lack of legislation
1) The major formulation problem that has permeated much of the legislative work.
2) The Swedish view on corporate gruops, where we in Sweden has chosen a viewpoint where we consider companies in the same group as independent from each other.
3) The unwillingness from the business environment to change the current legislation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Johansson, Filip LU
supervisor
organization
course
HARH10 20121
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Ansvarsgenombrott, Moderbolag, Dotterbolag
language
Swedish
id
2966064
date added to LUP
2012-08-15 16:22:12
date last changed
2012-08-15 16:22:12
@misc{2966064,
  abstract     = {In recent decades, the form of limited company has been a very popular way to conduct business on, this both international and national. The most characteristic feature for the limted company is the limited liability. The limited liability means that shareholders as a rule do not risk more than the invested capital. The private furtune is thus seperated from the company's assets. The general rule regarding the limiting liability may under special circumstances cease, and the shareholders are then forced to answer for the debts of the company. In Sweden, the issue of piercing the corporate veil has only been put to a test few times but it raises a lot of interest since it touches upon a very delicate issue. Despite a few swedish legislation attemps are there still no legislation that clarifies when a piercing of the coporate veil situation may occur. 

In Sweden there has never been any special legislation for groups, as a result they have fallen into the companies act. As a consequence we in Sweden have chosen to consider a parent company on the same premises as a shareholder
The purpose of this essay is to find out why we in Sweden doesn´t have any legislation regulating when a parent company (shareholder) may be responsible, in other words, why don´t we in Sweden have any legislation governing when there is a possibility of piercing the corporate veil in a group?
In order to find the answer to this question I have studied relevant doctrine and practice and done a comparative outlook primarily towards Germany where they have chosen to solve the problem with a particular group companies legislation. 
I have during the work with this essey found out that there are a number of factors that led to the lack of legislation 
1) The major formulation problem that has permeated much of the legislative work. 
2) The Swedish view on corporate gruops, where we in Sweden has chosen a viewpoint where we consider companies in the same group as independent from each other. 
3) The unwillingness from the business environment to change the current legislation.},
  author       = {Johansson, Filip},
  keyword      = {Ansvarsgenombrott,Moderbolag,Dotterbolag},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Moderbolags ansvar för dotterbolags skulder - Varför finns det ingen lagstiftning om ansvarsgenombrott i Sverige?},
  year         = {2012},
}