Advanced

Prosolvias efterdyningar - En studie i när kausalitet föreligger i samband med revisors skadeståndsansvar.

Schönbeck, Annette LU (2015) HARH12 20151
Department of Business Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats syftar att besvara frågan när kausalitet föreligger för revisorers skadeståndsansvar. Denna fråga har varit aktuell sedan det kända Prosolvia-målet kom för några år sedan. I det målet ansåg hovrätten att för att bestämma om kausalitet förelåg var man tvungen att skapa ett hypotetiskt händelseförlopp.
I detta hypotetiska händelseförlopp undersöktes om skadan hade uppkommit om revisorn hade genomfört en ordentlig granskning av årsredovisningen. Hovrätten ansåg i detta mål att skadan inte hade uppkommit om granskningen hade gjorts enligt god revisionssed. Men domskälet blev kritiserat eftersom många ansåg att det inte fanns tillräcklig grund i denna bedömning. Prosolvia-målet fick inget HD avgörande och därför har målet inget... (More)
Denna uppsats syftar att besvara frågan när kausalitet föreligger för revisorers skadeståndsansvar. Denna fråga har varit aktuell sedan det kända Prosolvia-målet kom för några år sedan. I det målet ansåg hovrätten att för att bestämma om kausalitet förelåg var man tvungen att skapa ett hypotetiskt händelseförlopp.
I detta hypotetiska händelseförlopp undersöktes om skadan hade uppkommit om revisorn hade genomfört en ordentlig granskning av årsredovisningen. Hovrätten ansåg i detta mål att skadan inte hade uppkommit om granskningen hade gjorts enligt god revisionssed. Men domskälet blev kritiserat eftersom många ansåg att det inte fanns tillräcklig grund i denna bedömning. Prosolvia-målet fick inget HD avgörande och därför har målet inget högre prejudicerande värde, något som istället uppkom med det senare BDO-målet.
I BDO-målet ansåg HD att hovrättens dom i Prosolvia-målet inte hade tillräcklig grund och att det var ett felaktigt hypotetiskt händelseförlopp. De ansåg vidare att det istället ska vara årsredovisningen och inte granskningen som låg till grund för kausaliteten. Frågan var om den skadelidande hade agerat drastiskt annorlunda om årsredovisningen hade visat den korrekta bilden från början. Om han/hon hade gjort det förelåg kausalitet mellan skadan och händelsen. Detta var även en åsikt som många rättsvetare höll med om, vilket skapat ett större behov för hårdare reglering angående ansvarsfördelningen i aktiebolag.
Under 2015 kommer denna förändring ske i och med implementeringen av EU:s revisionspaket. Detta kommer leda till hårdare krav på revisorers kompetens, utökad revisionsberättelse samt en tydligare ansvarsfördelning. Om revisionspaketet leder till en minskad risk för felaktigt skadeståndsanspråk mot revisorer kan endast tiden avgöra. (Less)
Abstract
The current statues of confusion for accountant’s damage claims is spreading in Sweden. After the highly mediatized Prosolvia-case a lot of questions regarding causality has surfaced. When does causality for an accountant’s damage claim become applicable?
Since the Prosolvia-case verdict there has been a stream of confusion of how the court decided to determine the causality. They decided that one should base a hypothetical course of events on whether the accountant’s audit had been done correctly or not. This choice of a hypothetical course of events became disregarded by scientist in the field of law.
After a couple of years a new case of damage claim for accountants appeared. The BDO-case verdict became a milestone for damage claims.... (More)
The current statues of confusion for accountant’s damage claims is spreading in Sweden. After the highly mediatized Prosolvia-case a lot of questions regarding causality has surfaced. When does causality for an accountant’s damage claim become applicable?
Since the Prosolvia-case verdict there has been a stream of confusion of how the court decided to determine the causality. They decided that one should base a hypothetical course of events on whether the accountant’s audit had been done correctly or not. This choice of a hypothetical course of events became disregarded by scientist in the field of law.
After a couple of years a new case of damage claim for accountants appeared. The BDO-case verdict became a milestone for damage claims. The court decided that the hypothetical course of event that was described in the Prosolvia-case was faulty. One can’t make a fair judgment based on if the accountant’s audit was thoroughly done or not. It can only be done by examining if the injured party would drastically change its decision making based on the correct financial statement, presented by the company.
This verdict has had an overall positive feedback from the scientific community. They agree that this is a more correct form of judging if there is a causality between the damage and the occurrence. It also brings back order to the field of damage claim and lessens the effect of the deep pocket theory, that’s currently spreading chaos for accountants. This has also led to the need of stricter guidelines for how thoroughly an accountant should audit a company. In the year of 2015 this will hopefully come when Swedish regulations has to intertwine with the new European audit guidelines. How these new regulations will affect the accountant community is still unknown but hopefully it will lead to order and less risks of faulty damage claims towards accountants. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Schönbeck, Annette LU
supervisor
organization
course
HARH12 20151
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Law, Business Law, Economy, Prosolvia, BDO, Accountant, Damage claims, Causality, Handelsrätt, Revisorer, Skadeståndsansvar, Kausalitet, Ekonomi, Juridik.
language
Swedish
id
7370260
date added to LUP
2015-06-18 12:10:19
date last changed
2015-06-18 12:10:19
@misc{7370260,
  abstract     = {The current statues of confusion for accountant’s damage claims is spreading in Sweden. After the highly mediatized Prosolvia-case a lot of questions regarding causality has surfaced. When does causality for an accountant’s damage claim become applicable?
Since the Prosolvia-case verdict there has been a stream of confusion of how the court decided to determine the causality. They decided that one should base a hypothetical course of events on whether the accountant’s audit had been done correctly or not. This choice of a hypothetical course of events became disregarded by scientist in the field of law. 
After a couple of years a new case of damage claim for accountants appeared. The BDO-case verdict became a milestone for damage claims. The court decided that the hypothetical course of event that was described in the Prosolvia-case was faulty. One can’t make a fair judgment based on if the accountant’s audit was thoroughly done or not. It can only be done by examining if the injured party would drastically change its decision making based on the correct financial statement, presented by the company. 
This verdict has had an overall positive feedback from the scientific community. They agree that this is a more correct form of judging if there is a causality between the damage and the occurrence. It also brings back order to the field of damage claim and lessens the effect of the deep pocket theory, that’s currently spreading chaos for accountants. This has also led to the need of stricter guidelines for how thoroughly an accountant should audit a company. In the year of 2015 this will hopefully come when Swedish regulations has to intertwine with the new European audit guidelines. How these new regulations will affect the accountant community is still unknown but hopefully it will lead to order and less risks of faulty damage claims towards accountants.},
  author       = {Schönbeck, Annette},
  keyword      = {Law,Business Law,Economy,Prosolvia,BDO,Accountant,Damage claims,Causality,Handelsrätt,Revisorer,Skadeståndsansvar,Kausalitet,Ekonomi,Juridik.},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Prosolvias efterdyningar - En studie i när kausalitet föreligger i samband med revisors skadeståndsansvar.},
  year         = {2015},
}