@misc{9217424,
  abstract     = {{The paper examines and reviews how the current right of rem regulates and characterizes the use of security transfers as credit security. In addition, the contractual relationship that the lender and the borrower find themselves in when the ownership of the collateral has been transferred to the lender is also examined. The right of use and separation is also discussed and examined in relation to how case law has presented and interpreted the current right of rem. 

A security transfer is in its form something between a mortgage agreement and a transfer of ownership. The intermediate nature arises to some extent from the correlation it possesses with a mortgage agreement regarding its purpose, that is, to act as security for the payment obligation that the borrower has undertaken. In addition, the phenomenon is also similar to a transfer of ownership when the ownership of the collateral has been transferred from the borrower to the lender. What distinguishes a security transfer from a pledge and a transfer of ownership is that the lender provides the ownership of the property, the borrower retains the right of use and through implied or explicit contractual clauses, ownership shall revert. 

Bankruptcy as a concept is mainly regulated in the Bankruptcy Act (1987:672) (KL) and is a legal procedure that means that all of a debtor’s creditors forcibly seize the assets of the person to pay off the person’s claims. In the current law that regulates the right of rem issues, the principle of tradition is a central principle for the buyer’s protection against the seller’s creditors. The principle means that a transfer of property only becomes valid when the buyer has the property in his possession. Even if the ownership has passed from the seller to the buyer, this is not sufficient to incorporate protection of right of rem against the seller’s creditors. The denunciation principle is also an element of the right of rem, but is regulated in the Act (1936:81) on promissory notes (SkbrL). The principle means that when transferring a simple promissory note, the transfer only applies to the person’s creditors if the debtor has been notified of the event. 

The analysis and conclusion of the paper states that if security transfers have been used as credit security for the payment obligations that the borrower has undertaken towards the lender in the event of bankruptcy, there is no universally correct answer. As with much in law, the answer depends on how the situation is structured. The lender obtains separation rights from the borrower’s creditors by, among other things, registering the security transfer agreement, following contractual obligations, a duty of loyalty and having carried out denunciation. While the bankruptcy estate obtains ownership of the collateral object by the contractual parties having failed to comply with or maintain the aforementioned requirements.}},
  author       = {{Löfling, Axel}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Säkerhetsöverlåtelse vid konkurs - En vetenskaplig granskning av ägande- och separationsrätten gällande säkerhetsöverlåtelser vid konkurs}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}