Advanced

Ansvarsgenombrott - En fråga för domstolarna? - En undersökning av ansvarsgenombrottet i svensk rätt

Bärnevåg Åhlin, Simon LU (2017) LAGF03 20171
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
En av de mest grundläggande principerna inom aktiebolagsrätten och en stark bidragande faktor till dess popularitet återfinns i 1 kap. 3 § ABL, dvs. aktieägare är som huvudregel inte personligt ansvariga för bolagets förpliktelser. Till varje huvudregel finns undantag och så även här. I Sverige har det diskuterats om aktieägare trotsallt ska kunna hållas ansvariga för bolagets förpliktelser genom s.k. ansvarsgenombrott och på vilka grunder det i så fall kan ske.
Genom åren har principerna för ansvarsgenombrott huvudsakligen utvecklats i praxis, men ABL innehåller idag även en del bestämmelser som kan tillskriva aktieägarna personligt ansvar i vissa specifika situationer. I övrigt finns det inget lagstadgat generellt ansvarsgenombrott,... (More)
En av de mest grundläggande principerna inom aktiebolagsrätten och en stark bidragande faktor till dess popularitet återfinns i 1 kap. 3 § ABL, dvs. aktieägare är som huvudregel inte personligt ansvariga för bolagets förpliktelser. Till varje huvudregel finns undantag och så även här. I Sverige har det diskuterats om aktieägare trotsallt ska kunna hållas ansvariga för bolagets förpliktelser genom s.k. ansvarsgenombrott och på vilka grunder det i så fall kan ske.
Genom åren har principerna för ansvarsgenombrott huvudsakligen utvecklats i praxis, men ABL innehåller idag även en del bestämmelser som kan tillskriva aktieägarna personligt ansvar i vissa specifika situationer. I övrigt finns det inget lagstadgat generellt ansvarsgenombrott, vilket innebär att frågan blir ett fall för domstolarna. Försök har gjorts till ett lagstadgat generellt ansvarsgenombrottsinstitut, vilka resulterade i att frågan ansågs bäst lämpad för domstolarna.
I denna studie menas därför med ansvarsgenombrott de fall då ett genombrytande av den personliga ansvarsfriheten sker utan stöd i lag. Ett antal avgöranden från HD har behandlat frågan och i doktrin har en omfattande diskussion förts gällande hur avgörandena ska tolkas och om det överhuvudtaget finns något ansvarsgenombrottsinstitut.
När domstolarna får både den skapande och dömande makten uppstår en konflikt mot den i Sverige etablerade principen om maktdelning och tillsammans med HD:s senaste avgörande som fastslår att institutet ansvarsgenombrott finns inom svensk rätt, men inte på vilka grunder ett ansvarsgenombrott kan ske leder det till en förhöjd osäkerhet kring när den personliga ansvarsfriheten kan genombrytas. Tidigare har tre rekvisit vuxit fram som ansetts aktualisera ansvarsgenombrott. Dessa är osjälvständighetsrekvisitet, otillbörlighetsrekvisitet och underkapitaliseringsrekvisitet, vilka HD nu menar inte är avgörande för om ansvarsgenombrott ska utdömas.
Med hjälp av HD:s avgöranden på området tillsammans med anknytande diskussioner i doktrin utreder förevarande uppsats huruvida ett ansvarsgenombrottsinstitut kan sägas finns i svensk rätt.
Enligt min mening blir konsekvensen, av att låta domstolarna fortsätta utveckla principerna om ansvarsgenombrott, att en osäkerhet uppstår kring när ansvarsgenombrott kan utdömas. Fördelarna är emellertid att det troligen sker en rättvisare bedömning. (Less)
Abstract
One of the most fundamental principles of company law and a strong contributing factor to its popularity can be found in chapter 1. article 3 in the Swedish Companies Act, i.e. shareholders, as a general principle, are not personally responsibility for the debts or actions of a corporation. To every general principle exists exceptions, which applies here as well. In Sweden, the question has been raised whether shareholders nevertheless can be held responsible for the debts or actions of a corporation in terms of piercing the corporate veil and further, on what principles it can be done.
Over the years, the principles regarding piercing the corporate veil have been developed in court practice, but today the Swedish Companies Act contains... (More)
One of the most fundamental principles of company law and a strong contributing factor to its popularity can be found in chapter 1. article 3 in the Swedish Companies Act, i.e. shareholders, as a general principle, are not personally responsibility for the debts or actions of a corporation. To every general principle exists exceptions, which applies here as well. In Sweden, the question has been raised whether shareholders nevertheless can be held responsible for the debts or actions of a corporation in terms of piercing the corporate veil and further, on what principles it can be done.
Over the years, the principles regarding piercing the corporate veil have been developed in court practice, but today the Swedish Companies Act contains some regulations which may attribute a personal responsibility to the shareholders in certain specific situations. Otherwise, there is no general statuary piercing the corporate veil protection, which means that the issue will be a case for the courts. Attempts have been made to implement a statuary piercing the corporate veil protection, but the conclusion of those attempts were that the issue is considered most appropriate for the courts to handle
Therefore, in this study, piercing the corporate veil refer to the cases where a piercing of the corporate veil takes place without the support of the law. Several rulings from the supreme court have dealt with the issue and in doctrine has an extensive discussion arisen regarding how the rulings should be interpreted and whether there overall exists a piercing of the corporate veil.
When the courts have both the power of sentence and the legislative power a conflict arises against the principle of separation of state powers, which is established in Swedish law. Together with the most recent ruling of the supreme court, which establish that a general piercing of the corporate veil exists in Swedish law but not on which facts such can be applied. It leads to an increased uncertainty about when the corporate veil can be pierced. Prior the supreme court’s last ruling, three necessary conditions was considered cause a piercing of the corporate veil, these are lack of independence, improper use of the Swedish Company Act and undercapitalization, which now according to the supreme court are not decisive if piercing of the corporate veil shall be imposed.
The aim of this study is the analyze whether a piercing of the corporate veil exist or not in Swedish law. This will be made with guidance from the rulings of the supreme court together with the related discussions in the doctrine. In my opinion, the drawback of letting the courts continue to develop the piercing of the corporate veil principles is that it tends to arise an uncertainty about when such can be imposed. The benefits, however, is that it leads to more fair assessments. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Bärnevåg Åhlin, Simon LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20171
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
associationsrätt, ansvarsgenombrott
language
Swedish
id
8908474
date added to LUP
2017-07-01 18:03:49
date last changed
2017-07-01 18:03:49
@misc{8908474,
  abstract     = {One of the most fundamental principles of company law and a strong contributing factor to its popularity can be found in chapter 1. article 3 in the Swedish Companies Act, i.e. shareholders, as a general principle, are not personally responsibility for the debts or actions of a corporation. To every general principle exists exceptions, which applies here as well. In Sweden, the question has been raised whether shareholders nevertheless can be held responsible for the debts or actions of a corporation in terms of piercing the corporate veil and further, on what principles it can be done. 
Over the years, the principles regarding piercing the corporate veil have been developed in court practice, but today the Swedish Companies Act contains some regulations which may attribute a personal responsibility to the shareholders in certain specific situations. Otherwise, there is no general statuary piercing the corporate veil protection, which means that the issue will be a case for the courts. Attempts have been made to implement a statuary piercing the corporate veil protection, but the conclusion of those attempts were that the issue is considered most appropriate for the courts to handle
Therefore, in this study, piercing the corporate veil refer to the cases where a piercing of the corporate veil takes place without the support of the law. Several rulings from the supreme court have dealt with the issue and in doctrine has an extensive discussion arisen regarding how the rulings should be interpreted and whether there overall exists a piercing of the corporate veil. 
When the courts have both the power of sentence and the legislative power a conflict arises against the principle of separation of state powers, which is established in Swedish law. Together with the most recent ruling of the supreme court, which establish that a general piercing of the corporate veil exists in Swedish law but not on which facts such can be applied. It leads to an increased uncertainty about when the corporate veil can be pierced. Prior the supreme court’s last ruling, three necessary conditions was considered cause a piercing of the corporate veil, these are lack of independence, improper use of the Swedish Company Act and undercapitalization, which now according to the supreme court are not decisive if piercing of the corporate veil shall be imposed. 
The aim of this study is the analyze whether a piercing of the corporate veil exist or not in Swedish law. This will be made with guidance from the rulings of the supreme court together with the related discussions in the doctrine. In my opinion, the drawback of letting the courts continue to develop the piercing of the corporate veil principles is that it tends to arise an uncertainty about when such can be imposed. The benefits, however, is that it leads to more fair assessments.},
  author       = {Bärnevåg Åhlin, Simon},
  keyword      = {associationsrätt,ansvarsgenombrott},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Ansvarsgenombrott - En fråga för domstolarna? - En undersökning av ansvarsgenombrottet i svensk rätt},
  year         = {2017},
}