<p>There are no set guidelines on how to interpret the criteria’s in the adjustment rule within the meaning of the companies act. The criteria’s are not discussed in literature and the Swedish case law in this area is very limited. A reason for the limited use of the adjustment rule is the slow and very costly process, which does not grantee the outcome of the case. Because of the lack of case law regarding damages and the adjustment rule it has not been up for discussion. The responsibility of a CEO or member of the board is a very central part in a working company. The rules for damages must therefore work as an incitement for a member of the board or CEO to show care and make decisions the very best of interest of the company. All types of companies involve some form of risk taking. The rules within the companies act shall not discourage the board or CEO to make well calculated decisions that in the end can become a loss-making deal.</p><p>The adjustment rule in the companies act is written in very general terms. This is because of the large type of situations that can occur in a company. Sweden’s and the rest of Scandinavia’s legal systems are very much alike. To try and understand how the adjustment rule is supposed to be processed; a comparison is going to be made with another Nordic country’s equivalent rule, in this case Denmark. This can shed more light on how to interpret the adjustment rule within the meaning of the companies act, and if there are any differences between the two countries in the usage of this rule. If there are any differences, is the difference more beneficial seen to the person who has caused the damage?</p><p>There are only minor differences between the two countries and the usage of the rule. However these differences can be seen at more beneficial to the person who has inflicted the damage, when using Denmark’s adjustment rule.</p>

There are no set guidelines on how to interpret the criteria’s in the adjustment rule within the meaning of the companies act. The criteria’s are not discussed in literature and the Swedish case law in this area is very limited. A reason for the limited use of the adjustment rule is the slow and very costly process, which does not grantee the outcome of the case. Because of the lack of case law regarding damages and the adjustment rule it has not been up for discussion. The responsibility of a CEO or member of the board is a very central part in a working company. The rules for damages must therefore work as an incitement for a member of the board or CEO to show care and make decisions the very best of interest of the company. All types of companies involve some form of risk taking. The rules within the companies act shall not discourage the board or CEO to make well calculated decisions that in the end can become a loss-making deal. The adjustment rule in the companies act is written in very general terms. This is because of the large type of situations that can occur in a company. Sweden’s and the rest of Scandinavia’s legal systems are very much alike. To try and understand how the adjustment rule is supposed to be processed; a comparison is going to be made with another Nordic country’s equivalent rule, in this case Denmark. This can shed more light on how to interpret the adjustment rule within the meaning of the companies act, and if there are any differences between the two countries in the usage of this rule. If there are any differences, is the difference more beneficial seen to the person who has caused the damage? There are only minor differences between the two countries and the usage of the rule. However these differences can be seen at more beneficial to the person who has inflicted the damage, when using Denmark’s adjustment rule.