Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2777958397> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 41 of
41
with 100 items per page.
- W2777958397 abstract "LFR was introduced in 1996 when it replaced the former law of cord. Since the introductionof LFR, no major changes have taking place. The main purpose of the law is still to savecompanies in crisis who have good chances to survive. The essay´s main purpose is to explainthe differences and similarities that exist between Swedish and Finnish law about the grantingof company reorganization. In early stages it could state that Sweden had the tendency togranting company reorganizations relatively easy compared to Finland. Swedish law wasconsidered to be vague in the area. Swedish law and its preparatory works also contributed toseveral questionable judicial decisions. Through the SAAB-case the law of companyreorganization had been more difficult to applicable regarding the granting of reconstruction.Through the granting of SAAB:s second reconstruction despite lack of application the courthave found difficulties to deny applications. In Swedish preparatory works it states that, ifthere is slightest possibility that the reconstruction will be successful, it should be accepted. Inlight 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 butdeveloped and changed in 2007. The reason for the change was that Finland was too generousin their grants. In the preparatory works the investigators presented several percentagesaccording to granted reconstructions and the results after a few years. The statistics showedthat several companies were granted reconstruction and that several of these companiesdeclared 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 forreconstruction. In both countries, the debtor has to accept the application made by thecreditor. Another similarity is that both laws have a wide open perspective according to theterm trader. The differences between the laws are more comprehensive. One of the biggestdifferences 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 ruleworks as a complement to 2 chapter 6 § FSL. The rule in 2 chapter 7 § FSL is missing in theSwedish law. In Sweden can barriers against reconstruction be found by reading the rule of 2chapter 6 § LFR e contrario. This can be considered as a weakness in the Swedish law. It isthereby important that LFR takes inspiration from FSL. The Finnish law seems more adaptedto the actual circumstances. It is more costly with an unsuccessful reconstruction than abankruptcy; therefore it is of great importance that the grant of the reconstruction is donecorrectly to avoid a chain effect. The Finnish statistics can demonstrate that the law changegenerated a more efficient law.Another area that the essay covers is the complicated boundary between reconstruction andbankruptcy. One of the goals in the essay has been to clarify the boundary. When eachprocedure becomes current is stated in the Swedish law of bankruptcy (KonkL) and LFR. Byan introduction of a regulation about barriers in Swedish law, the problem would besimplified. Such regulation would lead to clear guidelines when reconstruction and whenbankruptcy is current." @default.
- W2777958397 created "2018-01-05" @default.
- W2777958397 creator A5026870012 @default.
- W2777958397 creator A5056015579 @default.
- W2777958397 date "2016-01-01" @default.
- W2777958397 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
- W2777958397 title "Förutsättningar för företagsrekonstruktion : En jämförelse mellan svensk och finländsk insolvensrätt" @default.
- W2777958397 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
- W2777958397 type Work @default.
- W2777958397 sameAs 2777958397 @default.
- W2777958397 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W2777958397 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2777958397 hasAuthorship W2777958397A5026870012 @default.
- W2777958397 hasAuthorship W2777958397A5056015579 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConcept C170706310 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConcept C25343380 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConcept C504631918 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConcept C77088390 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConceptScore W2777958397C11413529 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConceptScore W2777958397C170706310 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConceptScore W2777958397C17744445 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConceptScore W2777958397C199539241 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConceptScore W2777958397C25343380 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConceptScore W2777958397C2777351106 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConceptScore W2777958397C41008148 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConceptScore W2777958397C48103436 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConceptScore W2777958397C504631918 @default.
- W2777958397 hasConceptScore W2777958397C77088390 @default.
- W2777958397 hasLocation W27779583971 @default.
- W2777958397 hasOpenAccess W2777958397 @default.
- W2777958397 hasPrimaryLocation W27779583971 @default.
- W2777958397 isParatext "false" @default.
- W2777958397 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W2777958397 magId "2777958397" @default.
- W2777958397 workType "article" @default.