The stock market has proven to offer satisfactory means of raising capital for public companies. One behaviour that rather frequently can be observed is that companies on the stock market are becoming the subject of so-called takeover-offers. Immediately upon the commencement of a takeover-process the board of directors of a target-company is responsible for certain obligations stipulated in the legal framework for the stock market. An obligation of quite substantial significance for the shareholders in the target-company is the board of directors’ duty to make a statement on the takeover-offer. Since the said statement is of such significance for the shareholders, the question arises whether the board of directors can be held liable for irresponsible statements with regards to an imminent takeover-offer. This thesis aims to answer this question whilst examining closely related questions such as which obligations the board of directors has when making a statement on a takeover-offer as well as what basis of liability is applicable to the board of directors. Due to the nature of the Swedish capital market regulation the thesis also aims to illustrate and problematize the relationship between legislation and what is commonly referred to as self-regulation. By the means of a legal dogmatic method the thesis concludes that the boards of directors in some cases are liable for their statements on a takeover-offer. The conditions for which a basis of liability is applicable differs depending upon which ground of liability is chosen to establish said liability, this circumstance turns out to be of critical importance in a procedural sense. Although the basis of liability differs from one another the thesis displays that legitimate reasons speak for basing a claim for damages on the rule regarding tortious liability that the Swedish Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) has developed. In addition to how the board of directors can be held liable the research has also demonstrated the importance of the statements the board of directors make on a takeover-offer. This provides support to the belief that the board of directors should be able to be held responsible for careless statements with regards to an impending takeover-offer. Furthermore, the research shows that a lack of distinct conjunction between self-regulation and legislation could generate an inconsistent construction of what the content of the current law is at any given time.