Advanced

Ansvarsfördelning - risk för ansvarsförskjutning från styrelseledamot till revisor?

Månsson, Alexandra LU (2018) JURM02 20181
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Aktiebolagets styrelseledamöter ska enligt lag svara för bolagets organisation och förvaltning av bolagets angelägenheter, 8:4 ABL. Revisorns ansvar är därefter att granska styrelseledamöternas förvaltning av bolaget samt säkerställa att bolagets räkenskaper i allt väsentligt är korrekt. Revisorns uppdrag ske utföras i enlighet med god revisionssed, 9:3 ABL. Om styrelseledamot eller revisor vållar bolaget, ägare eller ”någon annan” skada vid utförande av respektive uppdrag kan bolagsorganen bli skadeståndsskyldiga enligt 29:1-2 ABL. Om flera bolagsorgan är medvållande till skadan svarar de solidariskt för skadan.

Revisor har en lagstadgad skyldighet att teckna ansvarsförsäkring enligt 27 § RL. Ansvarsförsäkringen riskerar leda till att... (More)
Aktiebolagets styrelseledamöter ska enligt lag svara för bolagets organisation och förvaltning av bolagets angelägenheter, 8:4 ABL. Revisorns ansvar är därefter att granska styrelseledamöternas förvaltning av bolaget samt säkerställa att bolagets räkenskaper i allt väsentligt är korrekt. Revisorns uppdrag ske utföras i enlighet med god revisionssed, 9:3 ABL. Om styrelseledamot eller revisor vållar bolaget, ägare eller ”någon annan” skada vid utförande av respektive uppdrag kan bolagsorganen bli skadeståndsskyldiga enligt 29:1-2 ABL. Om flera bolagsorgan är medvållande till skadan svarar de solidariskt för skadan.

Revisor har en lagstadgad skyldighet att teckna ansvarsförsäkring enligt 27 § RL. Ansvarsförsäkringen riskerar leda till att skadelidande väljer att rikta skadeståndstalan mot revisorn. Det ankommer därefter på revisorn att föra regresstalan mot medvållande, 29:6 ABL, något som inte alltid är möjligt i praktiken med hänsyn till de kostnader som ytterligare processer är förknippade med. Det sagda innebär att det föreligger en risk för ansvarsförskjutning mellan bolagsorganen styrelse och revisor. Flera rättsfall från Högsta domstolen har behandlat frågeställningar som indirekt påverkar ansvarsfördelningen mellan bolagsorganen. I Q-bolaget, då styrelsen väckte talan mot revisorn, behandlade Högsta domstolen normskyddsläran och konstaterade att styrelsen som huvudregel inte omfattas av normskyddet för revisorns utövande av revisionsverksamhet. Även i målet BDO behandlades begränsning av den skadelidande kretsen ”någon annan” genom tillämpning av normskyddsläran. I målet Marknadsplan förtydligades fråga om jämkning mellan skadevållare gällande internt skadestånd, vilket visade på restriktiviteten i möjlighet till jämkning.

SOU 2016:34 syftade till att undersöka om ansvarsfördelning mellan styrelse och revisor är tillräckligt tydlig i lag samt hur revisorns ansvar är avgränsat i förhållande till styrelseledamöternas ansvar för samma skada. Enligt utredningen är ansvarsfördelningen tydligt utformad i lag. Det är istället kringbestämmelser så som revisorns ansvarsförsäkring samt principen om solidariskt skadestånd för flera skadevållare som indirekt riskerar leda till ansvarsförskjutning mellan bolagsorganen. Utredningens förslag var att förtydliga bestämmelsen om jämkning, möjliggöra avtal mellan revisor och styrelse gällande ersättning för internt skadestånd samt att de bolagsledningar i publika bolag som har tecknat ansvarsförsäkring meddelar detta. Utredningen ledde dock inte lett till någon proposition vilket gör att problemet kvarstår. (Less)
Abstract
According to the Swedish Companies Act, chapter 8 section 4, the board of directors of the stock company is obligated to account for the organization and administration of the company’s affairs. Thereafter, the responsibility of the auditor is to review the board member’s administration of the company as well as to assure the correctness of the annual report in agreement with general accounting standards. An auditor or a board member who causes intentional or negligent damage to the company, shareholders or “others” in the line of his or her duties, should accordingly be held liable in damages by the Swedish Companies Act chapter 29 section 1-2. In case of contributory action or negligence the parties are held jointly and severally liable.... (More)
According to the Swedish Companies Act, chapter 8 section 4, the board of directors of the stock company is obligated to account for the organization and administration of the company’s affairs. Thereafter, the responsibility of the auditor is to review the board member’s administration of the company as well as to assure the correctness of the annual report in agreement with general accounting standards. An auditor or a board member who causes intentional or negligent damage to the company, shareholders or “others” in the line of his or her duties, should accordingly be held liable in damages by the Swedish Companies Act chapter 29 section 1-2. In case of contributory action or negligence the parties are held jointly and severally liable.

The auditor has a legal responsibility to obtain an insurance against liability which could necessitate the person who has sustained damage to bring proceedings against the auditor. The regulation does not preclude a recourse action later on, however, it can be difficult to bring action before the court due to financial issues linked to the procedure. That said, there is a risk for the auditor to bear the entire cost due to liability which may lead to a shift of responsibilities regarding the auditor and the board of directors. The Supreme Court has in several court cases passed judgments that in different aspects effect a possible shift of responsibilities. The latest case Q-company related to the injured “others”. The Supreme Court analyzed and interpreted the preparatory documents regarding the regulation regarding auditors in the Swedish Companies Act and established that the board of directors generally do not bare an interest deserving protection. The case regarding BDO also caused the Supreme Court to restrict the circle of injured “others” by considering the interest of the exceeded regulation. In the case Marknadsplan the Supreme Court clarified, regarding the compensation toward the company, that the possibilities to adjust the liability in damages between the members of the board of directors and auditors is itself limited.

In 2016, a committee was assigned to examine if the liability and responsibilities regarding the auditor and the boards of directors was sufficiently defined by law. The committee was also assigned to examine if the regulation regarding liability of damage for the auditor and the board of directors, when they both contributed to the same liability, was well defined. SOU 2016:34 affirmed that the Sweden Companies Act is evident in the matter. However, the SOU 2016:34, found that the main issue is the insurance of the auditor and that the auditor and the board of directors are jointly liable for damage caused. SOU 2016:34 suggested a minor correction of the possibility to adjust liability, to allow auditor to enter into agreement with the board of directors regarding liabilities towards the company and impose public companies to inform whether they have an insurance or not. SOU 2016:34 did however not lead to any regulations and the problem still remains. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Månsson, Alexandra LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
A shift of responsibilities regarding the board of directors and the auditor?
course
JURM02 20181
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Associationsrätt
language
Swedish
id
8941300
date added to LUP
2018-06-13 10:40:16
date last changed
2018-06-13 10:40:16
@misc{8941300,
  abstract     = {According to the Swedish Companies Act, chapter 8 section 4, the board of directors of the stock company is obligated to account for the organization and administration of the company’s affairs. Thereafter, the responsibility of the auditor is to review the board member’s administration of the company as well as to assure the correctness of the annual report in agreement with general accounting standards. An auditor or a board member who causes intentional or negligent damage to the company, shareholders or “others” in the line of his or her duties, should accordingly be held liable in damages by the Swedish Companies Act chapter 29 section 1-2. In case of contributory action or negligence the parties are held jointly and severally liable. 

The auditor has a legal responsibility to obtain an insurance against liability which could necessitate the person who has sustained damage to bring proceedings against the auditor. The regulation does not preclude a recourse action later on, however, it can be difficult to bring action before the court due to financial issues linked to the procedure. That said, there is a risk for the auditor to bear the entire cost due to liability which may lead to a shift of responsibilities regarding the auditor and the board of directors. The Supreme Court has in several court cases passed judgments that in different aspects effect a possible shift of responsibilities. The latest case Q-company related to the injured “others”. The Supreme Court analyzed and interpreted the preparatory documents regarding the regulation regarding auditors in the Swedish Companies Act and established that the board of directors generally do not bare an interest deserving protection. The case regarding BDO also caused the Supreme Court to restrict the circle of injured “others” by considering the interest of the exceeded regulation. In the case Marknadsplan the Supreme Court clarified, regarding the compensation toward the company, that the possibilities to adjust the liability in damages between the members of the board of directors and auditors is itself limited. 

In 2016, a committee was assigned to examine if the liability and responsibilities regarding the auditor and the boards of directors was sufficiently defined by law. The committee was also assigned to examine if the regulation regarding liability of damage for the auditor and the board of directors, when they both contributed to the same liability, was well defined. SOU 2016:34 affirmed that the Sweden Companies Act is evident in the matter. However, the SOU 2016:34, found that the main issue is the insurance of the auditor and that the auditor and the board of directors are jointly liable for damage caused. SOU 2016:34 suggested a minor correction of the possibility to adjust liability, to allow auditor to enter into agreement with the board of directors regarding liabilities towards the company and impose public companies to inform whether they have an insurance or not. SOU 2016:34 did however not lead to any regulations and the problem still remains.},
  author       = {Månsson, Alexandra},
  keyword      = {Associationsrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Ansvarsfördelning - risk för ansvarsförskjutning från styrelseledamot till revisor?},
  year         = {2018},
}