Förutsättningar för företagsrekonstruktion : En jämförelse mellan svensk och finländsk insolvensrätt

Sammanfattning: 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.