Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Förutsättningar för företagsrekonstruktion: En jämförelse mellan svensk och finländsk insolvensrätt
Karlstad University.
Karlstad University.
2016 (Swedish)Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesisAlternative title
Preconditions for company reconstruction : A comparison between Swedish and Finnish insolvency law (English)
Abstract [en]

LFR was introduced in 1996 when it replaced the former law of cord. Since the introduction

of LFR, no major changes have taking place. The main purpose of the law is still to save

companies in crisis who have good chances to survive. The essay´s main purpose is to explain

the differences and similarities that exist between Swedish and Finnish law about the granting

of company reorganization. In early stages it could state that Sweden had the tendency to

granting company reorganizations relatively easy compared to Finland. Swedish law was

considered to be vague in the area. Swedish law and its preparatory works also contributed to

several questionable judicial decisions. Through the SAAB-case the law of company

reorganization had been more difficult to applicable regarding the granting of reconstruction.

Through the granting of SAAB:s second reconstruction despite lack of application the court

have found difficulties to deny applications. In Swedish preparatory works it states that, if

there is slightest possibility that the reconstruction will be successful, it should be accepted. In

light of above, the Swedish law is generous in relation to their grants.

In Finland has the law been up for investigation. FSL was introduced in 1993 but

developed and changed in 2007. The reason for the change was that Finland was too generous

in their grants. In the preparatory works the investigators presented several percentages

according to granted reconstructions and the results after a few years. The statistics showed

that several companies were granted reconstruction and that several of these companies

declared bankruptcy.

The essay addresses several similarities and differences between the countries legislation.

The similarities were for example that both the debtor and the creditor could apply for

reconstruction. In both countries, the debtor has to accept the application made by the

creditor. Another similarity is that both laws have a wide open perspective according to the

term trader. The differences between the laws are more comprehensive. One of the biggest

differences is about the barriers against reconstruction, which can be found in 2 chapter 7 §

FSL. In Finland there is a rule where various barriers against reconstruction is stated. The rule

works as a complement to 2 chapter 6 § FSL. The rule in 2 chapter 7 § FSL is missing in the

Swedish law. In Sweden can barriers against reconstruction be found by reading the rule of 2

chapter 6 § LFR e contrarió. This can be considered as a weakness in the Swedish law. It is

thereby important that LFR takes inspiration from FSL. The Finnish law seems more adapted

to the actual circumstances. It is more costly with an unsuccessful reconstruction than a

bankruptcy; therefore it is of great importance that the grant of the reconstruction is done

correctly to avoid a chain effect. The Finnish statistics can demonstrate that the law change

generated a more efficient law.

Another area that the essay covers is the complicated boundary between reconstruction and

bankruptcy. One of the goals in the essay has been to clarify the boundary. When each

procedure becomes current is stated in the Swedish law of bankruptcy (KonkL) and LFR. By

an introduction of a regulation about barriers in Swedish law, the problem would be

simplified. Such regulation would lead to clear guidelines when reconstruction and when

bankruptcy is current.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. , 48 p.
Keyword [sv]
National Category
URN: urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-43586OAI: diva2:942423
Subject / course
Educational program
Study Programme in Jurisprudence (180 ECTS credits)
Available from: 2016-06-27 Created: 2016-06-23 Last updated: 2016-06-27Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(898 kB)9 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 898 kBChecksum SHA-512
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
Karlstad University

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 9 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Total: 24 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link