No abstract available. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of Natal, Durban, 2002.

<p>The subject for this composition is the instute"ansvarsgenombrott"which in english is called"lifting the corporate veil"or"piercing the corporate veil". This institute has given rise to several very controversial questions. The most important questions are: Which principles must be fulfilled if the institute shall come in to question and is there a need for a regulation of the institute in swedish law?</p>

The subject for this composition is the instute"ansvarsgenombrott"which in english is called"lifting the corporate veil"or"piercing the corporate veil". This institute has given rise to several very controversial questions. The most important questions are: Which principles must be fulfilled if the institute shall come in to question and is there a need for a regulation of the institute in swedish law?

Ett processbolag är ett bolag vars huvudsyfte är att driva en process åt sin huvudman. Enligt huvudregeln i rättegångsbalken skall den förlorande parten stå för den vinnande partens rättegångskostnader. Vid det fall att en person använder sig av ett underkapitaliserat processbolag för att driva processen kan denne person vid en eventuell förlust, försätta bolaget i konkurs och därmed undvika att betala det stora belopp som krav på rättegångskostnader oftast utgör. Huvudregeln i aktiebolagslagen är att vare sig aktieägare eller någon annan skall vara skyldig att svara för aktiebolagets åtaganden. Denna huvudregel stipuleras i aktiebolagslagens 3 kap 1 §. Det har dock utvecklats en princip i praxis för när undantag görs ifrån denna huvudprincip och man ålägger aktieägare eller annan med "bestämmande inflytande" över bolaget ett ansvar för bolagets skulder. Denna princip kallas för ansvarsgenombrott. I doktrin går åsikterna isär när det gäller denna princip. Vissa författare anser att någon praxis som ger stöd för ett ansvarsgenombrottsinstitut inte existerar eller att det åtminstone är omöjligt att dra några säkra slutsatser om en eventuell utformning. Andra författare kan se tydliga principer utvecklade och har även ställt upp kriterier för när ansvarsgenombrott kan anses vara för handen. När det gäller processbolag diskuteras frågan inte i någon vidare utsträckning i vare sig praxis eller doktrin. Med det nya rättsfallet T 3004-08 (Punctatorfallet) har dock frågan fått nytt liv. Det rör sig här om ett enormt utstuderat användande av aktiebolagsformen för att genom ett processbolag undgå ansvar för rättegångskostnaderna i målet. Jag sätter i denna uppsats existerande rättskällor i relation till detta nya rättsfall för att utröna huruvida användandet av ett processbolag är grund för att tillämpa principerna om ansvarsgenombrott eller ej.

Zugleich: Diss. Berlin, 2008. / Literaturverz.

The purpose of my Thesis is an analysis of primary and secondary liability of Members of the Board of directors agains third persons especially against creditors. The main aim of the Thesis is to provide a comprehensive explanation of how the law enshrined in the creditors'pursuit of their rights directly to the members of the Board compared with the international rules. The thesis is composed of tree chapters. Chapter one is a general introduction to an organization, functions, duties and responsibilities of a joint-stock company.The chapter is subdivided into three parts. Part one describes generaly the Board of directors and focuses on its nature, actions, as well as on the casting of its members, on the membership itself and the relationship between the company and its members.The part two targets the rights and obligations related to executing the function given. Part tree pays attention to the responsibility and lability of Members of Board to joint-stock company. Chapter two examines relevant Czech legislation of legal personal lability of Members of the Board, who took part in establishment and managment of the legal entity. This chapter, too, consists of tree parts. Part one deals with individual regulations of the personal liability of Members of the Board. Part two elaborates on the...

<p>The basic principle for limited companies is that the owners are not liable for the debts of the company. To protect the creditors of the company, however, a theory of personal liability for the owners has evolved, the so called piercing the corporate veil theory. For decades there have been disagreements wether or not it would be motivated to legislate the theory of piercing the corporate veil, and what this legislation might look like. The basic problems in my essay are: Is there a need to legislate the theory of piercing the corporate veil in Sweden? What would such a legislation look like in Sweden? To answer these questions I analyzed cases regarding the piercing the corporate veil theory, examined the theory in the USA and Germany and described how authors would like to answer these questions. My results are that there is a need to increase the liability that a parent company has for the debts of its subsidiary companies. This should be done by changing the rule in 15:3 ABL.</p>

The basic principle for limited companies is that the owners are not liable for the debts of the company. To protect the creditors of the company, however, a theory of personal liability for the owners has evolved, the so called piercing the corporate veil theory. For decades there have been disagreements wether or not it would be motivated to legislate the theory of piercing the corporate veil, and what this legislation might look like. The basic problems in my essay are: Is there a need to legislate the theory of piercing the corporate veil in Sweden? What would such a legislation look like in Sweden? To answer these questions I analyzed cases regarding the piercing the corporate veil theory, examined the theory in the USA and Germany and described how authors would like to answer these questions. My results are that there is a need to increase the liability that a parent company has for the debts of its subsidiary companies. This should be done by changing the rule in 15:3 ABL.

Magister Legum - LLM

LLM / Department of Mercantile Law / Once a company is incorporated it becomes a juristic entity, distinct and separate from its incorporators. Thus, the company bears its own liabilities. However, section 20(9) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 grants the courts the discretion to disregard the separate legal personality of a company where there is unconscionable abuse of the juristic personality of the company. However, the challenge is that the section fails to define what constitutes ‘‘unconscionable abuse’’. This research thus investigated what constitutes unconscionable abuse of the juristic personality of the company as the ground for piercing the corporate veil. Simply put, this research identified the circumstances under which the corporate veil may be pierced, given the confounding provisions of section 20(9). In unravelling the problems posed by the said section, the researcher employed a combination of doctrinal legal research methodology and comparative research methodology which involve the scrutiny of ‘black letter of the law’ and the laws of other jurisdictions. The result from this extensive inquiry is that the term ‘unconscionable abuse’ is a legislative derivate from the various terms used by the courts at common law to justify the disregarding of the separate legal personality of the corporate entity. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion reached is that just as those terms used at common law are confounding, so shall this legislative innovation. Therefore, in order to resolve this problem each matter should be dealt with based on its peculiar facts.