Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Överlåtelsebegränsningar i aktieägaravtal - om begränsat sakrättsligt skydd för belastningar av äganderätten till aktier i kupongbolag

Ivarsson, Dennis LU (2013) JURM02 20131
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Aktieägaravtal används flitigt av aktieägare för reglering av maktbalans och ägarstruktur. Dessa syften tillgodoses vanligen av överlåtelsebegränsningar i form av förköps- och samtyckesklausuler. För att tillföra nyhetsvärde och relevans i det praktiska rättslivet har arbetet avgränsats till aktieägaravtal mellan aktieägare i s.k. kupongbolag, vilka utgör 95 % av de svenska aktiebolagen.

I Typsituationen för arbetet bryter D mot avtalade överlåtelsebegränsningar genom att överlåta aktier till utomstående E, som antas känna till avtalet. Därmed aktualiseras kopplade sanktioner i form av vite eller skadestånd. Om saken blir föremål för rättslig prövning skulle de avtalade överlåtelsebegränsningarna emellertid, enligt den allmänna... (More)
Aktieägaravtal används flitigt av aktieägare för reglering av maktbalans och ägarstruktur. Dessa syften tillgodoses vanligen av överlåtelsebegränsningar i form av förköps- och samtyckesklausuler. För att tillföra nyhetsvärde och relevans i det praktiska rättslivet har arbetet avgränsats till aktieägaravtal mellan aktieägare i s.k. kupongbolag, vilka utgör 95 % av de svenska aktiebolagen.

I Typsituationen för arbetet bryter D mot avtalade överlåtelsebegränsningar genom att överlåta aktier till utomstående E, som antas känna till avtalet. Därmed aktualiseras kopplade sanktioner i form av vite eller skadestånd. Om saken blir föremål för rättslig prövning skulle de avtalade överlåtelsebegränsningarna emellertid, enligt den allmänna uppfattningen i svensk rätt, inte tillerkännas bolagsrättslig verkan och i strid mot övriga avtalsparters vilja, skulle E införas i aktieboken som ny aktieägare.

Min genomgång och analys av relevanta rättskällor visar dock att denna uppfattning, som tycks utgå från att giltigheten av förvärv ska bedömas annorlunda ur ”aktiebolagsrättsligt hänseende”, är långt ifrån självklar. Överlåtelse av aktier i kupongbolag regleras av SkbrL till skillnad från den specialreglering som gäller för kontoförda aktier i avstämningsbolag. Vilka principer som gäller för giltigheten av fång, dvs. förvärv av aktier i det här fallet, har dock inte direkt avgjorts i svensk praxis och utgör därmed en lucka i gällande rätt.

De senaste åren har Sjöman argumenterat för att giltigheten av aktieförvärv ska bedömas enligt allmänna avtals- och sakrättsliga principer, i likhet med fång av övrig lös egendom. Enligt äldre avgöranden och ett alltmer förstärkt stöd i doktrin har dessa principer resulterat i en allmängiltig princip om begränsat sakrättsligt skydd. Denna allmängiltiga princip innebär skydd för avtalade överlåtelsebegränsningar avseende övrig lös egendom, så till vida att konkurrerande förvärv av tredjeman i ond tro, inte blir civilrättsligt giltiga. Undersökningen av samtliga principer enligt denna huvudlinje inkluderar även principen om kontraktuell partsbegränsning, samt rättsfigurerna medverkan till kontraktsbrott och till viss del otillbörlig intervenering i avtalsförhållande.

I sin avhandling från 2010 utgår Arvidsson från splittringsförbudet för att härleda doktrinens hittills första definition av aktiebolagsrättsliga verkningar. Denna definition åtskiljer aktiebolagets inre- och yttre rättsförhållande, samt förklarar varför den aktiebolagsrättsliga separationsprincipen och splittringsförbudet inte berör avtalade överlåtelsebegränsningar. Arvidssons härledningar återknyter till Sjömans huvudlinje om allmänna rättsgrundsatser – de båda huvudlinjerna härleder därmed samma sak, från associationsrättsliga respektive civilrättsliga utgångspunkter.

Härmed ifrågasätts slutligen det uppenbarhetskrav som enligt förarbetena till 5 kap. 9 § ABL utgör tröskeln för att en styrelse ska kunna neka införing i aktieboken. De båda huvudlinjerna ovan återknyter till grundläggande äganderättsdefinitioner och klargör enligt min mening att en bedömning om begränsat sakrättsligt skydd blir avgörande för om E ska införas i aktieboken. Doktrin och knapphändig praxis kan enligt min mening tolkas så att E i ond tro mycket väl skulle kunna nekas införing i aktieboken. Att ett civilrättsligt ogiltigt förvärv naturligtvis inte ska bedömmas annorlunda enligt detta uppenbarhetskrav, jämte Håstads påpekande att det framstår som något av en anomali att tänka sig att en juridisk person har ett rättsligt ansvar rörande ägandet i sig själv, är ett par av mina käpphästar i kritiken mot den allmänna uppfattningen. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Shareholder agreements are frequently used between shareholders to regulate exertion and ownership structure. Transfer obligations in the form of preferential- and consent clauses are usually used to provide for these purposes. In contributing with news value and relevance to the practical legal society, the delimitation of this work has been set to s.c. “kupongbolag”, which constitute 95 % of the registered Swedish companies.

In the typical situation for this work, D breaches the agreed transfer obligations by transferring shares to E whom is not concerned by- but acquainted (in bad faith) with the agreement. Thereby the breach brings about adapted indemnifications such as a lump sum or penalty. In the event of the case becoming... (More)
Shareholder agreements are frequently used between shareholders to regulate exertion and ownership structure. Transfer obligations in the form of preferential- and consent clauses are usually used to provide for these purposes. In contributing with news value and relevance to the practical legal society, the delimitation of this work has been set to s.c. “kupongbolag”, which constitute 95 % of the registered Swedish companies.

In the typical situation for this work, D breaches the agreed transfer obligations by transferring shares to E whom is not concerned by- but acquainted (in bad faith) with the agreement. Thereby the breach brings about adapted indemnifications such as a lump sum or penalty. In the event of the case becoming subject to legal trial, the agreed transfer obligations would not, according to the general opinion in Swedish law, attribute implications under Swedish company law. Thereby, in conflict with the will of the remaining parties, E will be listed in the company book as a new shareholder.

However, my workings and analysis of relevant legal sources; show that this opinion, which seem to assume that the validity of acquisitions should be regarded in a different manner with respect to company law, is far from obvious. Transfer of shares in “kupongbolag” (which are companies with book-entry shares) is subjected to the Swedish Act regulating promissory notes “Skuldebrevslagen (1936:81)” unlike the special acts regulating the shares in companies where share entitlements are based on the possession of stock certificates) “avstämningsbolag”. The principles to apply regarding the validity of legal acquisitions, i.e. acquisitions of shares in this case; have, however, not been settled in Swedish case law and thereby provide for a gap in current legislation.

The last years, Sjöman has proposed arguments for the applicability of common principles of contract- and valid protection against third parties on share acquisitions, as of legal acquisition of other loose property. According to previously settled case law of an older type and increasingly strengthened support in doctrine, these principles have resulted in a principle of universal applicability for delimit valid protection against third party. This universal principle provides delimit valid protection against agreed transfer obligations regarding other loose property, thus far, competing acquisitions from third party in bad faith, can gain no validity according to civil law. The investigation of all principles constituting this mainline also includes the principle of contractual party delimitation, along with the judicial forms of contribution to breach of contract and, to a certain extent, unauthorized intervention in agreed partnership.

In his doctoral dissertation from 2010, Arvidsson proceed from the divisional ban “splittringsförbudet” to derivate the very first definition of implications under company law. This definition not only distinguishes the company’s internal- and external legal relations, but also explains why the company separation principle and the divisional ban, do not concern agreed transfer obligations. Arvidssons’ derivations affirm Sjömans’ mainline of general principles of law, both mainlines thereby derivate the same judicial point of view, through company- respectively civil law standpoints.

Hereby the demand for obviousness which, according to the motives for the Swedish company act 5:9 constitutes the limit of the board of directors’ option to deny listing in the company book, is questioned. The two mainlines previously mentioned both affirm legal foundations of ownership definitions and clarify, according to my opinion, that the assessment of delimit valid protection against third party, determines if E should be listed in the company book. Doctrine and ambiguous case law show, according to my opinion, that E in bad faith, very well could be denied listing in the company book. That an, in accordance with civil law, invalid acquisition naturally should not be assessed differently according to this demand of obviousness, along with Håstad’s remark, that it appears some what of an anomaly having a judicial person with legal responsibility concerning ownership in it self, are a couple of my main highlights in my critics of the general opinion. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Ivarsson, Dennis LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Transfer obligations in shareholder agreements - about limited valid protection for ownership to shares in book-entry companies
course
JURM02 20131
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Avtalsrätt, associationsrätt, sakrätt, äganderätt, begränsat sakrättsligt skydd, rent obligatoriska rättigheter, aktieägaravtal, överlåtelsebegränsningar
language
Swedish
id
3809102
date added to LUP
2013-06-20 09:14:59
date last changed
2013-06-20 09:14:59
@misc{3809102,
  abstract     = {Shareholder agreements are frequently used between shareholders to regulate exertion and ownership structure. Transfer obligations in the form of preferential- and consent clauses are usually used to provide for these purposes. In contributing with news value and relevance to the practical legal society, the delimitation of this work has been set to s.c. “kupongbolag”, which constitute 95 % of the registered Swedish companies.

In the typical situation for this work, D breaches the agreed transfer obligations by transferring shares to E whom is not concerned by- but acquainted (in bad faith) with the agreement. Thereby the breach brings about adapted indemnifications such as a lump sum or penalty. In the event of the case becoming subject to legal trial, the agreed transfer obligations would not, according to the general opinion in Swedish law, attribute implications under Swedish company law. Thereby, in conflict with the will of the remaining parties, E will be listed in the company book as a new shareholder.

However, my workings and analysis of relevant legal sources; show that this opinion, which seem to assume that the validity of acquisitions should be regarded in a different manner with respect to company law, is far from obvious. Transfer of shares in “kupongbolag” (which are companies with book-entry shares) is subjected to the Swedish Act regulating promissory notes “Skuldebrevslagen (1936:81)” unlike the special acts regulating the shares in companies where share entitlements are based on the possession of stock certificates) “avstämningsbolag”. The principles to apply regarding the validity of legal acquisitions, i.e. acquisitions of shares in this case; have, however, not been settled in Swedish case law and thereby provide for a gap in current legislation.

The last years, Sjöman has proposed arguments for the applicability of common principles of contract- and valid protection against third parties on share acquisitions, as of legal acquisition of other loose property. According to previously settled case law of an older type and increasingly strengthened support in doctrine, these principles have resulted in a principle of universal applicability for delimit valid protection against third party. This universal principle provides delimit valid protection against agreed transfer obligations regarding other loose property, thus far, competing acquisitions from third party in bad faith, can gain no validity according to civil law. The investigation of all principles constituting this mainline also includes the principle of contractual party delimitation, along with the judicial forms of contribution to breach of contract and, to a certain extent, unauthorized intervention in agreed partnership.

In his doctoral dissertation from 2010, Arvidsson proceed from the divisional ban “splittringsförbudet” to derivate the very first definition of implications under company law. This definition not only distinguishes the company’s internal- and external legal relations, but also explains why the company separation principle and the divisional ban, do not concern agreed transfer obligations. Arvidssons’ derivations affirm Sjömans’ mainline of general principles of law, both mainlines thereby derivate the same judicial point of view, through company- respectively civil law standpoints.

Hereby the demand for obviousness which, according to the motives for the Swedish company act 5:9 constitutes the limit of the board of directors’ option to deny listing in the company book, is questioned. The two mainlines previously mentioned both affirm legal foundations of ownership definitions and clarify, according to my opinion, that the assessment of delimit valid protection against third party, determines if E should be listed in the company book. Doctrine and ambiguous case law show, according to my opinion, that E in bad faith, very well could be denied listing in the company book. That an, in accordance with civil law, invalid acquisition naturally should not be assessed differently according to this demand of obviousness, along with Håstad’s remark, that it appears some what of an anomaly having a judicial person with legal responsibility concerning ownership in it self, are a couple of my main highlights in my critics of the general opinion.},
  author       = {Ivarsson, Dennis},
  keyword      = {Avtalsrätt,associationsrätt,sakrätt,äganderätt,begränsat sakrättsligt skydd,rent obligatoriska rättigheter,aktieägaravtal,överlåtelsebegränsningar},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Överlåtelsebegränsningar i aktieägaravtal - om begränsat sakrättsligt skydd för belastningar av äganderätten till aktier i kupongbolag},
  year         = {2013},
}