Utdelningsfordringar och inlösen av preferensaktier - ”De inlösta preferensaktierna” och sambandet mellan fordringar och aktiers bestånd
(2025) JURM02 20251Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Preferensaktien är ett finansiellt instrument som kan liknas vid en hybrid mel
lan en aktie och en obligation. Genom rätten till ett på förhand bestämt utdel
ningsbelopp får aktieägarna, likt räntan på ett lån, betalt på den beslutade av
stämningsdagen. Då beslut om vinstutdelning fattas på bolagsstämman upp
står en fordran för aktieägaren mot bolaget. Denna fordran utgör aktieägarens
egendom. Likt andra penningfordringar är aktieägaren fri att disponera ford
ran genom att exempelvis överlåta eller pantsätta den. Då aktiebolaget beslu
tar om inlösen av aktier i enlighet med ett inlösenförbehåll efter beslutet om
vinstutdelning, men innan avstämningsdagen, blir frågan vad som sker med
utdelningsfordran. HD avgjorde i målet ”De... (More) - Preferensaktien är ett finansiellt instrument som kan liknas vid en hybrid mel
lan en aktie och en obligation. Genom rätten till ett på förhand bestämt utdel
ningsbelopp får aktieägarna, likt räntan på ett lån, betalt på den beslutade av
stämningsdagen. Då beslut om vinstutdelning fattas på bolagsstämman upp
står en fordran för aktieägaren mot bolaget. Denna fordran utgör aktieägarens
egendom. Likt andra penningfordringar är aktieägaren fri att disponera ford
ran genom att exempelvis överlåta eller pantsätta den. Då aktiebolaget beslu
tar om inlösen av aktier i enlighet med ett inlösenförbehåll efter beslutet om
vinstutdelning, men innan avstämningsdagen, blir frågan vad som sker med
utdelningsfordran. HD avgjorde i målet ”De inlösta preferensaktierna” att ut
delningsfordran är villkorad av aktiens existens på avstämningsdagen. Då ak
tien löses in upphör således utdelningsfordran att existera. Däremot var två
justitieråd skiljaktiga, och menade att de aktuella bestämmelserna inte kunde
medföra att utdelningsfordran är avhängig aktiens existens på avstämnings
dagen i avstämningsbolag.
Domen har skapat frågor kring balansen mellan bolagsrätt och fordringsrätt
samt aktiebolagsrättens minoritetsskydd. Mot bakgrund av dessa frågor syftar
uppsatsen till att öka läsarens förståelse för dessa. För att uppnå syftet an
vänds följande frågeställningar: Hur regleras sambandet mellan en utdel
ningsfordran och en akties bestånd vid inlösen av aktier i avstämningsbolag
efter ”De inlösta preferensaktierna”? Vilka konsekvenser medför domen för
minoritetsaktieägare? Vilka alternativa tolkningar kan göras av rättsläget och
hur kan de anses påverka gällande rätt? Uppsatsen tillämpar en rättsdogma
tisk metod. Således tillämpas vedertagna rättskällor, såsom lagtext, förarbeten
och rättspraxis för att utreda och analysera gällande rätt. I de analyserande
kapitlen är utgångspunkten dock huvudsakligen den juridiska litteraturen och
den skiljaktiga meningen i domen. Genom dessa källor är det möjligt att un
dersöka på vilka grunder majoritetens argument kan ifrågasättas, samt i vilken
utsträckning en alternativ tolkning av den för domen aktuella frågan hade va
rit mer balanserad med beaktande av fordringsrätten och minoritetsskyddet i
aktiebolagen.
Resultatet på frågeställningarna är att det skett en extensiv tolkning av 4 kap.
37 § ABL. Enligt majoriteten villkorar paragrafen även befintliga aktieägares
rätt till utdelning med att aktien, till vilken utdelningsfordran hör, ska återfin
nas i aktieboken på avstämningsdagen. Detta framgår inte uttryckligen av pa
ragrafen eller dess bakgrund, men stöds genom en analogi till bland annat
köprätten. Detta samband medför en rad oönskade konsekvenser. Exempelvis
innebär det att då aktiebolaget löser in aktien försvinner även aktieägarens
rätt till den tillhörande utdelningsfordran. Aktiebolaget kan således ta tillbaka
beslut om utdelning genom att lösa in aktien. Om inlösenbeloppet underskri
der värdet av aktien gynnas bolaget av att den del av värderingen som avser
den beslutade utdelningen tillfaller bolaget.
Majoriteten har därtill etablerat ett nytt sätt genom vilket fordringar kan upp
höra. Utöver att penningfordran kan upphöra genom att gäldenären betalar
eller att borgenären efterger fordran, kan den även upphöra genom att aktien
till vilken utdelningsfordran hör löses in.
Ur minoritetshänseende är domen problematisk eftersom den ger upphov till
en ensidig rätt för aktiebolaget att återta beslut om utdelning. Beslut om inlö
sen av preferensaktier fattas med enkel majoritet, vilket innebär en risk för
minoriteten att på bolagsstämma få sina aktier inlösta till förmån för majori
teten. Enkel majoritet föreligger då ett förslag vid omröstning får mer än hälf
ten av de avlagda rösterna. Detta framstår som omotiverat i det aktuella fallet
eftersom minoritetsskyddet utgör en fundamental del av aktiebolagsrätten.
Därtill kan domen begränsa minoritetsskyddet mot utsvältning i 18 kap. 11 §
eftersom den möjlighet en minoritet har att kräva utdelning omintetgörs om
bolagsstämman med enkel majoritet kan återta den beslutade utdelningen. Det
finns även stöd för att ett majoritetsbeslut på bolagsstämma som medför att
majoriteten kan återta minoritetens utdelningsfordringar för sin egen vinning
omfattas av generalklausulen i 7 kap. 47 § ABL.
Slutligen finns det stöd för en alternativ tolkning av de rättskällor som ligger
till grund för majoritetens beslut. Denna företräds i viss utsträckning av de
skiljaktiga. Av analysen framgår att en tolkning genom vilken fordringsrätts
liga hänsyn beaktas vore mer ändamålsenlig. Majoritetens tolkning av det
rättsliga sambandet ger därtill upphov till oklarheter och oönskade konse
kvenser. Därav är det möjligt att ifrågasätta i vilken utsträckning efterföljande
avgöranden kommer ansluta sig till majoritetens uppfattning. (Less) - Abstract
- A preference share is a financial instrument that can be characterised as a
hybrid between a share and a bond. Through the right to a predetermined div
idend amount, shareholders receive payment on the agreed record date, simi
lar to interest on a loan. When a resolution to distribute profits is taken at the
annual general meeting, a claim arises for the shareholder against the com
pany. This claim constitutes the property of the shareholder, and like other
monetary claims, it can be freely disposed of through transfer or pledge.
When a company decides to redeem shares in accordance with a redemption
clause after the decision to distribute profits but before the record date, the
issue arises as to the status of the... (More) - A preference share is a financial instrument that can be characterised as a
hybrid between a share and a bond. Through the right to a predetermined div
idend amount, shareholders receive payment on the agreed record date, simi
lar to interest on a loan. When a resolution to distribute profits is taken at the
annual general meeting, a claim arises for the shareholder against the com
pany. This claim constitutes the property of the shareholder, and like other
monetary claims, it can be freely disposed of through transfer or pledge.
When a company decides to redeem shares in accordance with a redemption
clause after the decision to distribute profits but before the record date, the
issue arises as to the status of the dividend claim. In the case “The redeemed
preference shares” (sw: De inlösta preferensaktierna), The Supreme Court
ruled that the dividend claim is conditional on the existence of the share in
the share register on the record date. Thus, redemption of the share prior to
the record date extinguishes the dividend claim. However, two judges dis
sented, arguing that the relevant provision could not reasonably be interpreted
to make the dividend claim dependent on the continued existence of the share
on the record date in a CSD-registered company (sw: avstämningsbolag).
The judgement has raised questions concerning the balance between company
law and the shareholder’s right to its claim, particularly with respect to the
protection of minority shareholders. In light of these issues, the purpose of
this paper is to enhance the reader's understanding of these legal components
and the tension between them. To fulfil this purpose, the following questions
are addressed: How is the relationship between a dividend claim and the ex
istence of a share regulated in connection with the redemption of shares in a
CSD-registered company following the 'Redeemed Preference Shares' case?
What consequences does the judgment generate for minority shareholders?
What alternative interpretations of the legal position are possible, and how
might they influence future solutions of the problem at hand?"
The paper applies a legal dogmatic method. Accordingly, it uses generally
accepted legal sources, such as statutory provisions, preparatory works and
case law to investigate and analyse the applicable law. In the analytical chap
ters, however, emphasis is placed on academic legal literature and the dissent
ing opinion in the Supreme Court. These sources facilitate a critical examina
tion of the majority’s reasoning and provide a basis for assessing whether
alternative legal interpretations, more consistent with the shareholder’s right
to its claims and the principles of minority protection in limited companies,
would have generated a more balanced outcome.
The findings indicate that the Supreme Court has adopted an extensive inter
pretation of Chapter 4, Section 37 of the Companies Act. According to the
majority, a shareholder’s entitlement to dividends is conditional upon the
share being registered on the record date. This is not explicitly stated in the
section or its background but is instead derived by analogy with the Sale of
Goods Act. This reasoning gives rise to multiple undesirable consequences.
For instance, when the limited liability company redeems the share, the share
holder's right to the associated dividend claim is also extinguished. The lim
ited liability company can thus withdraw an earlier dividend resolution by
redeeming the share. If the redemption amount is less than the market value
of the share, the company effectively benefits from the portion of the value
attributable to the dividend. Moreover, the majority has introduced a new by
which monetary claims can be extinguished. In addition to the fact that the
claim can be cancelled through traditional methods such as the debtor paying,
or by the creditor's remission of the monetary claim, it can also be cancelled
by redeeming the underlying share.
From a minority perspective, the judgement is troubling. It essentially enables
a unilateral right for the majority shareholder of the limited liability company
to revoke dividend resolution. Since resolutions to redeem preference shares
may be adopted by a simple majority, there is a risk that the majority may
force the redemption of minority shares at the general meeting. A simple ma
jority entails that a proposal is carried if it receives more than half of the votes
cast. This outcome appears unjustifiable because minority protection is a cor
nerstone of company law.
In addition, the judgement may limit the protection of minorities against
squeeze-out by starvation (sw: utsvältning) as set out in Chapter 18, Section
11 of the Companies Act since the possibility for a minority to demand a
dividend is nullified if the general meeting can revoke the dividend decisions
through a simple majority vote. A majority decision at a general meeting,
through which the majority can revoke the minority's dividend claims for its
own benefit, may also be subject to the general clause in Chapter 7, Section
47 of the Companies Act.
Finally, there is support for an alternative interpretation of the sources of law
on which the majority's decision is based. These are to some extent repre
sented by the minority. The analysis shows that an interpretation which takes
into account the shareholders right to claims would be more appropriate. In
addition, the majority's interpretation creates legal uncertainty and produces
undesirable outcomes. It is therefore questionable whether future decisions
will endorse the reasoning of the majority in the Supreme Court. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9189223
- author
- Holmberg, Sebastian LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Dividend Claims and the Redemption of Preference Shares – 'The Redeemed Preference Shares' and the link Between Claims and the Existence of Shares
- course
- JURM02 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- förmögenhetsrätt, associationsrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9189223
- date added to LUP
- 2025-06-17 11:29:41
- date last changed
- 2025-06-17 11:29:41
@misc{9189223, abstract = {{A preference share is a financial instrument that can be characterised as a hybrid between a share and a bond. Through the right to a predetermined div idend amount, shareholders receive payment on the agreed record date, simi lar to interest on a loan. When a resolution to distribute profits is taken at the annual general meeting, a claim arises for the shareholder against the com pany. This claim constitutes the property of the shareholder, and like other monetary claims, it can be freely disposed of through transfer or pledge. When a company decides to redeem shares in accordance with a redemption clause after the decision to distribute profits but before the record date, the issue arises as to the status of the dividend claim. In the case “The redeemed preference shares” (sw: De inlösta preferensaktierna), The Supreme Court ruled that the dividend claim is conditional on the existence of the share in the share register on the record date. Thus, redemption of the share prior to the record date extinguishes the dividend claim. However, two judges dis sented, arguing that the relevant provision could not reasonably be interpreted to make the dividend claim dependent on the continued existence of the share on the record date in a CSD-registered company (sw: avstämningsbolag). The judgement has raised questions concerning the balance between company law and the shareholder’s right to its claim, particularly with respect to the protection of minority shareholders. In light of these issues, the purpose of this paper is to enhance the reader's understanding of these legal components and the tension between them. To fulfil this purpose, the following questions are addressed: How is the relationship between a dividend claim and the ex istence of a share regulated in connection with the redemption of shares in a CSD-registered company following the 'Redeemed Preference Shares' case? What consequences does the judgment generate for minority shareholders? What alternative interpretations of the legal position are possible, and how might they influence future solutions of the problem at hand?" The paper applies a legal dogmatic method. Accordingly, it uses generally accepted legal sources, such as statutory provisions, preparatory works and case law to investigate and analyse the applicable law. In the analytical chap ters, however, emphasis is placed on academic legal literature and the dissent ing opinion in the Supreme Court. These sources facilitate a critical examina tion of the majority’s reasoning and provide a basis for assessing whether alternative legal interpretations, more consistent with the shareholder’s right to its claims and the principles of minority protection in limited companies, would have generated a more balanced outcome. The findings indicate that the Supreme Court has adopted an extensive inter pretation of Chapter 4, Section 37 of the Companies Act. According to the majority, a shareholder’s entitlement to dividends is conditional upon the share being registered on the record date. This is not explicitly stated in the section or its background but is instead derived by analogy with the Sale of Goods Act. This reasoning gives rise to multiple undesirable consequences. For instance, when the limited liability company redeems the share, the share holder's right to the associated dividend claim is also extinguished. The lim ited liability company can thus withdraw an earlier dividend resolution by redeeming the share. If the redemption amount is less than the market value of the share, the company effectively benefits from the portion of the value attributable to the dividend. Moreover, the majority has introduced a new by which monetary claims can be extinguished. In addition to the fact that the claim can be cancelled through traditional methods such as the debtor paying, or by the creditor's remission of the monetary claim, it can also be cancelled by redeeming the underlying share. From a minority perspective, the judgement is troubling. It essentially enables a unilateral right for the majority shareholder of the limited liability company to revoke dividend resolution. Since resolutions to redeem preference shares may be adopted by a simple majority, there is a risk that the majority may force the redemption of minority shares at the general meeting. A simple ma jority entails that a proposal is carried if it receives more than half of the votes cast. This outcome appears unjustifiable because minority protection is a cor nerstone of company law. In addition, the judgement may limit the protection of minorities against squeeze-out by starvation (sw: utsvältning) as set out in Chapter 18, Section 11 of the Companies Act since the possibility for a minority to demand a dividend is nullified if the general meeting can revoke the dividend decisions through a simple majority vote. A majority decision at a general meeting, through which the majority can revoke the minority's dividend claims for its own benefit, may also be subject to the general clause in Chapter 7, Section 47 of the Companies Act. Finally, there is support for an alternative interpretation of the sources of law on which the majority's decision is based. These are to some extent repre sented by the minority. The analysis shows that an interpretation which takes into account the shareholders right to claims would be more appropriate. In addition, the majority's interpretation creates legal uncertainty and produces undesirable outcomes. It is therefore questionable whether future decisions will endorse the reasoning of the majority in the Supreme Court.}}, author = {{Holmberg, Sebastian}}, language = {{swe}}, note = {{Student Paper}}, title = {{Utdelningsfordringar och inlösen av preferensaktier - ”De inlösta preferensaktierna” och sambandet mellan fordringar och aktiers bestånd}}, year = {{2025}}, }