Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Målbolagsstyrelsens lojalitetsplikt vid offentliga uppköpserbjudanden och beslut om due diligence-undersökning – ett rättsekonomiskt perspektiv

Linde, Ian LU (2023) JURM02 20232
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
An acquisition is usually preceded by due diligence. In a listed limited liability company with dispersed ownership, there is usually no way to allow shareholders to decide whether to accept or reject a potential bidder's request for due diligence. This means that it is the board of directors of the target company that decides on the issue of due diligence. This is even though the actual purchase of the shares is a matter between the shareholders and the buyer of the shares.

The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyse the role of the board of a listed company when a public takeover bid is imminent, and a potential buyer wishes to carry out due diligence on the target company. The situation raises problems and questions under... (More)
An acquisition is usually preceded by due diligence. In a listed limited liability company with dispersed ownership, there is usually no way to allow shareholders to decide whether to accept or reject a potential bidder's request for due diligence. This means that it is the board of directors of the target company that decides on the issue of due diligence. This is even though the actual purchase of the shares is a matter between the shareholders and the buyer of the shares.

The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyse the role of the board of a listed company when a public takeover bid is imminent, and a potential buyer wishes to carry out due diligence on the target company. The situation raises problems and questions under both company law and stock market law.

In order to achieve the purpose, the legal dogmatic and legal analytical methods are used, with a legal economic starting point. In the paper, the legal dogmatic method is used to determine what is applicable law, de lege lata. The legal situation regarding the role of the board of directors of the target company is unclear. The lack of clarity regarding the role of the target company board and how its duty of loyalty is affected by the takeover situation is resolved in the paper, inter alia, by applying a legal economic approach. The legal economic approach presents, de sententia ferenda, a possible interpretation of the law within the framework of the applicable law. Otherwise, the conclusion is drawn, de lege ferenda, that the legislator should clarify the role of the board of the target company and how its duty of loyalty is affected by the takeover-situation.

To achieve the purpose, the following questions are answered: (i) How is the board's duty of loyalty affected by the imminence of a public takeover bid? (ii) What are the possibilities and obligations for the board of the target company to authorise due diligence before a takeover bid? (iii) Under what conditions can the board of the target company be held liable under the Swedish Companies Act (2005:551) (ABL) for a decision to conduct a due diligence investigation in connection with an imminent takeover bid?

In stock market law it appears from II.17 in the Takeover rules for Nasdaq Stockholm and Nordic Growth Market NGM that the board of the target company must act in the interest of the shareholders. In company law, however, it is unclear whether the board of the target company shall consider the interest of the company, which by extension is the common hypothetical interest of the shareholders as defined in Chapter 3, Section 3 ABL, or whether the board shall directly consider the interests of the shareholders taking part of the bid. The conclusion is that the board's duty of loyalty should shift from acting in the company's interest to directly promoting the interests of the shareholders in a takeover situation. Such a regime is in line with legal economic theories such as the limited liability company as a nexus of contract and counteracts the principal-agent-problem inherent in the limited liability company and maintains the protection of shareholders. Ensuring that the board of the target company acts in the interests of shareholders also maintains the confidence in the stock market and makes the limited company even more attractive as an investment form.

Under stock market law, the board of the target company has the possibility and a possible obligation to comply with potential buyers request for due diligence. Such a possibility and obligation could also exist under company law, depending on the interest of the shareholders.

Finally, the board may be liable to the company for damages if its decision causes damage and the other requirements for liability are met. The possibility for shareholders to obtain damages as a result of decisions taken by the board of the target company is more limited. It is concluded that shareholders should be able to rely on the duty of loyalty as a basis for liability. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Ett företagsförvärv föregås i regel av att en due diligence-undersökning genomförs. I ett noterat aktiebolag med spritt ägande saknas oftast möjlighet att låta aktieägarna fatta beslut om tillåtande eller nekande av en potentiell budgivares förfrågan om due diligence-undersökning. Det gör att det är målbolagsstyrelsen som fattar beslut i frågan om due diligence-undersökning, trots att själva köpet av aktier är en angelägenhet mellan aktieägarna och köparen av aktierna.

Syftet med uppsatsen är att beskriva och analysera vilken roll målbolagsstyrelsen har i ett noterat aktiebolag då ett offentligt uppköpserbjudande är nära förestående och en potentiell budgivare önskar genomföra en due diligence-undersökning av målbolaget. Situationen... (More)
Ett företagsförvärv föregås i regel av att en due diligence-undersökning genomförs. I ett noterat aktiebolag med spritt ägande saknas oftast möjlighet att låta aktieägarna fatta beslut om tillåtande eller nekande av en potentiell budgivares förfrågan om due diligence-undersökning. Det gör att det är målbolagsstyrelsen som fattar beslut i frågan om due diligence-undersökning, trots att själva köpet av aktier är en angelägenhet mellan aktieägarna och köparen av aktierna.

Syftet med uppsatsen är att beskriva och analysera vilken roll målbolagsstyrelsen har i ett noterat aktiebolag då ett offentligt uppköpserbjudande är nära förestående och en potentiell budgivare önskar genomföra en due diligence-undersökning av målbolaget. Situationen aktualiserar både aktiebolagsrättsliga och aktiemarknadsrättsliga problem och frågor.

För att uppnå syftet med uppsatsen tillämpas rättsdogmatisk och rättsanalytisk metod med rättsekonomiska utgångspunkter. I uppsatsen tillämpas rättsdogmatisk metod för att fastslå vad som är gällande rätt, de lege lata. Rättsläget rörande målbolagsstyrelsens lojalitetsplikt i en uppköpssituation är oklart. Oklarheten undanröjs i uppsatsen genom tillämpning av bland annat ett rättsekonomiskt anslag och det presenteras, de sententia ferenda, en möjlig lagtolkning inom gällande rätt. I något fall dras slutsatsen, de lege ferenda, att lagstiftaren bör förtydliga vilken roll målbolagsstyrelsen har i en uppköpssituation och hur deras lojalitetsplikt påverkas.

För att uppnå syftet besvaras följande frågeställningar: (i) Hur påverkas målbolagsstyrelsens lojalitetsplikt då ett offentligt uppköpserbjudande är nära förestående? (ii) Vilka möjligheter och skyldigheter har målbolagsstyrelsen att tillåta due diligence-undersökning av målbolaget inför ett förestående uppköpserbjudande? (iii) Under vilka förutsättningar kan målbolagsstyrelsen bli skadeståndsskyldig enligt aktiebolagslagen (2005:551) (ABL) för beslut om due diligence-undersökning vid ett förestående uppköpserbjudande?

I aktiemarknadsrätten framgår av II.17 i Takeover-regler för Nasdaq Stockholm och Nordic Growth Market NGM (Takeover-reglerna) att målbolagsstyrelsen ska agera i aktieägarnas intresse. Inom aktiebolagsrätten är det oklart om målbolagsstyrelsen ska beakta bolagets intresse, vilket i förlängningen är aktieägarnas gemensamma hypotetiska intresse definierat av 3 kap. 3 § ABL eller om målbolagsstyrelsen direkt ska beakta aktieägarnas intresse att ta del av budet. I uppsatsen dras slutsatsen att målbolagsstyrelsens lojalitetsplikt bör skifta från att verka i bolagets intresse till att direkt främja aktieägarnas intresse i en uppköpssituation. En sådan ordning är i linje med rättsekonomiska teorier om aktiebolaget som ett nexus of contracts och motverkar de principal-agent-problem som finns i aktiebolaget och upprätthåller skydd för aktieägarna. Att säkerställa att målbolagsstyrelsen agerar i aktieägarnas intresse upprätthåller också förtroendet för aktiemarknaden och gör aktiebolaget än mer attraktivt som investeringsform.

Enligt aktiemarknadsrätten finns det en möjlighet och en möjlig skyldighet för målbolagsstyrelsen att medverka till due diligence-undersökning. I uppsatsen dras slutsatsen att en sådan möjlighet och skyldighet även bör finnas enligt aktiebolagsrätten, beroende på vad som är i aktieägarna intresse.

Slutligen kan målbolagsstyrelsens ledamöter bli skadeståndsskyldiga gentemot bolaget om deras beslut orsakar skada och övriga rekvisit för skadeståndsskyldighet är uppfyllda. Aktieägarnas möjlighet att få skadestånd till följd av målbolagsstyrelsens beslut är mer begränsade. Slutsatsen dras att aktieägarna bör kunna lägga lojalitetsplikten som grund för skadeståndsansvar. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Linde, Ian LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The board of the target company's duty of loyalty in public takeover bids and due diligence decisions - a legal economic perspective
course
JURM02 20232
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Förmögenhetsrätt, rättsvetenskap (en.law)
language
Swedish
id
9143419
date added to LUP
2024-01-25 12:21:43
date last changed
2024-01-30 14:48:00
@misc{9143419,
  abstract     = {{An acquisition is usually preceded by due diligence. In a listed limited liability company with dispersed ownership, there is usually no way to allow shareholders to decide whether to accept or reject a potential bidder's request for due diligence. This means that it is the board of directors of the target company that decides on the issue of due diligence. This is even though the actual purchase of the shares is a matter between the shareholders and the buyer of the shares. 

The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyse the role of the board of a listed company when a public takeover bid is imminent, and a potential buyer wishes to carry out due diligence on the target company. The situation raises problems and questions under both company law and stock market law.

In order to achieve the purpose, the legal dogmatic and legal analytical methods are used, with a legal economic starting point. In the paper, the legal dogmatic method is used to determine what is applicable law, de lege lata. The legal situation regarding the role of the board of directors of the target company is unclear. The lack of clarity regarding the role of the target company board and how its duty of loyalty is affected by the takeover situation is resolved in the paper, inter alia, by applying a legal economic approach. The legal economic approach presents, de sententia ferenda, a possible interpretation of the law within the framework of the applicable law. Otherwise, the conclusion is drawn, de lege ferenda, that the legislator should clarify the role of the board of the target company and how its duty of loyalty is affected by the takeover-situation.

To achieve the purpose, the following questions are answered: (i) How is the board's duty of loyalty affected by the imminence of a public takeover bid? (ii) What are the possibilities and obligations for the board of the target company to authorise due diligence before a takeover bid? (iii) Under what conditions can the board of the target company be held liable under the Swedish Companies Act (2005:551) (ABL) for a decision to conduct a due diligence investigation in connection with an imminent takeover bid?

In stock market law it appears from II.17 in the Takeover rules for Nasdaq Stockholm and Nordic Growth Market NGM that the board of the target company must act in the interest of the shareholders. In company law, however, it is unclear whether the board of the target company shall consider the interest of the company, which by extension is the common hypothetical interest of the shareholders as defined in Chapter 3, Section 3 ABL, or whether the board shall directly consider the interests of the shareholders taking part of the bid. The conclusion is that the board's duty of loyalty should shift from acting in the company's interest to directly promoting the interests of the shareholders in a takeover situation. Such a regime is in line with legal economic theories such as the limited liability company as a nexus of contract and counteracts the principal-agent-problem inherent in the limited liability company and maintains the protection of shareholders. Ensuring that the board of the target company acts in the interests of shareholders also maintains the confidence in the stock market and makes the limited company even more attractive as an investment form.

Under stock market law, the board of the target company has the possibility and a possible obligation to comply with potential buyers request for due diligence. Such a possibility and obligation could also exist under company law, depending on the interest of the shareholders. 

Finally, the board may be liable to the company for damages if its decision causes damage and the other requirements for liability are met. The possibility for shareholders to obtain damages as a result of decisions taken by the board of the target company is more limited. It is concluded that shareholders should be able to rely on the duty of loyalty as a basis for liability.}},
  author       = {{Linde, Ian}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Målbolagsstyrelsens lojalitetsplikt vid offentliga uppköpserbjudanden och beslut om due diligence-undersökning – ett rättsekonomiskt perspektiv}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}