kristinn már reynisson’s ph.d. defence aarhus university, denmark department of law, aarhus bss...

(c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff 1

Kristinn Már Reynisson’sPh.D. defence

Aarhus University, DenmarkDepartment of Law, Aarhus BSS

Tuesday 1 December 2015, at 13:00

Professor, dr. jur.

ERIK WERLAUFFAalborg University, Denmark


Please define/explain.

• Dear Kristinn– you cannot expect everyone to have read your

entire manuscript…• So please define– what is the PPP – ’pollutor pays’ principle?– what is the ’LLP’ – ’limited liability’ principle?– when and why can a conflict between PPP and LLP

occur?– what is ’lifting/piercing the veil’?



• Please explain the linguistic meaning of the old/antique company law expressions…– lifting/piercing the veil (common law / equity)– Haftungsdurchgriff (German)– Ansvarsgenombrott (Swedish)– Hæftelsesgennembrud (Danish).



• Please explain the competences (in this connection) vested in…– the judge (legal practice, case law) – judge-made

law– legislator – statutory law• on national level (Iceland, Denmark etc.)• on ’federal level’ (EU)

– which level do you prefer in your thesis for the best solution of the PPP/LLP conflict?


Various legal instruments.

• More fields of law where the conflict is relevant– environment law (including the PPP) is not the only field of

law where the ’LLP’ (limited liability principle) may be felt problematic

• More legal instruments apt to solve the conflict– and ’lifting the veil’ is not the only solution to the ’LLP’

(limited liability principle)• Question– you have probably guessed… – why we chose the topic for your lecture - on the European

Court’s antitrust practice?


Types/classes of creditors?

• ’A creditor’ is not necessarily ’a creditor’– contractual creditor (aftalekreditor)• could have taken the risk into consideration when

entering the contract

– forced creditor (tvangskreditor)• either: tort creditor (retsbrudskreditor)• or: public creditor (offentligretlig kreditor), i.e. IRS• could not have taken the risk into consideration.


Types/classes of creditors?

• Question– is it fair and reasonable (i.e.: ’equity’) to distinguish

between types and ranks of creditors?• please consider the Danish UfR 1997.1642 H, Midtfyn• Børge Dahl & Jørgen Nørgaard in UfR 2000 B p. 399 ff.

– is it economically efficient to distinguish?• Eva Aaen Skovbo in Advokaten (Da.) 2001/1 p. 6, fn. 6• Carl Martin Roos in TfR 1993 p. 227 et subs.• Olav Kolstad in TfR 2008 p. 393 et subs.

– if so, which impact does this distinction hold for your argumentation?


Sweden, and SOU 1987:59.

• Sweden – what was suggested in SOU 1987:59 on ’ansvarsgenombrott’ (’piercing the veil’)• ABL § 1 a. (1) ”Kan ett aktiebolag inte uppfylla sina

forpliktelser mot borgenarerna och beror detta pa att en delagare begagnat sitt inflytande over bolaget pa ett gentemot borgenarerna otillborligt satt, svarar delagaren solidariskt med bolaget for vad som brister.”

• ABL § 1 a. ”If a public limited company cannot fulfil its obligations towards its creditors, and this is due to an owner’s exercising his influence on the company in an improper manner, such owner is jointly and severally liable with the company for the lacking amount.”



• Sweden – what was suggested in SOU 1987:59 on ’ansvarsgenombrott’ (’piercing the veil’)• ABL § 1 a (2). ”Ansvar intrader dock inte i annat fall an

da bolagets ekonomiska underlag varit uppenbart otillrackligt i forhallande till verksamhetens art och omfattning samt till forutsebara risker.”

• ”However, there is only liability if the economic foundation of the company has been apparently insufficient, compared to the magnitude of the business, and to foreseeable risks.”



• Sweden – what was suggested in SOU 1987:59 on ’ansvarsgenombrott’ (’piercing the veil’)• ABL § 1 a (3). ”For forpliktelser pa grund av avtal med

viss borgenar intrader ej ansvar for delagare, som gjort vad som pa honom skaligen ankommit for att upplysa borgenaren om bolagets ekonomiska forhallanden.”

• ”As to obligations based on contract with a creditor, an owner is not liable provided that he had done what was appropriate to inform the creditor about the economic situation of the company”.



• Sweden – how did it all end?– Kap. 25, § 19 ”En aktieagare som med vetskap om att bolaget

ar skyldigt att ga i likvidation enligt 17 § forsta stycket deltar i ett beslut att fortsatta bolagets verksamhet ansvarar solidariskt med dem som svarar enligt 18 § for de forpliktelser som uppkommer for bolaget efter den tidpunkt som anges i 17 § andra stycket.”

– ”A shareholder who, in spite of knowledge that the company was obliged to wind up according to § 17, 1st para, takes part in a decision to continue the company’s business, is jointly and severally liable with those persons liable according to § 18 for debt that has arisen after the point of time indicated in § 17, 2nd para”.



• Questions• whatever became of the good intentions from

SOU 1987:59?• in your opinion, is this satisfactory?• what happened?


Article 191(2) TFEU, and the PPP.

• Article 191(2) TFEU – the PPP– what is it?• a general legal principle? (no, probably not)• a principle (or rather: tool) merely for interpretation?

(yes, probably ’only’ this)



• Article 191(2)– Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of

protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.

– Unionens politik pa miljøomradet tager sigte pa et højt beskyttelsesniveau under hensyntagen til de forskelligartede forhold, der gør sig gældende i de forskellige omrader i Unionen. Den bygger pa forsigtighedsprincippet og princippet om forebyggende indsats, princippet om indgreb over for miljøskader fortrinsvis ved kilden og princippet om, at forureneren betaler.



• Question– in your opinion, can we deduct anything from the

words emphasized here (’at source’, ’ved kilden’), when it comes to the possibility of ’piercing the veil’?

– or are they just ’words’ in this connection?


Inspiration from other questions under group law.

• Present European initiatives to codify a ’Rozenblum doctrine’– i.e.: what should be allowed for the parent

company to do• the right to submit its subsidiaries (”daughters”) to a

common group interest• see e.g. a report by ”le Club des juristes”: ”Towards

recognition of the group interest in the European Union?” (June 2015) (please observe the question mark!)


Inspiration from other questions under group law.

• Question - could it be argued…– that when eventually codifying a right for the

parent… • a right to submit its subsidiaries (”daughters”) to a

common group interest……

– one should at the same time also aim for codifying a duty for the parent…• to hold ’forced creditors’ (tvangskreditorer) harmless…• under ’certain conditions’?

– If so: under which ’certain conditions’?


Conclusions.

• You deserve applause for…• combining environmental law and company law• choosing a terrifying subject like ’piercing the

veil’…• (completely death-defying)…• and having made a good job of it!

• taking your starting point in the ’federal’ aspect: EU law


Conclusions.

• and you also deserve applause for…• applying comparative methods (”foreign law”)• however, not as a länderbericht (country-by-country

report)…• which is often felt as being trampled to death by geese…

• but rather through an ’analytic method’…• where solutions from chosen countries are compared…• here e.g. US and Norway


Conclusions.

• and you also deserve applause for…• writing…

• de lege lata (on the law as it is), and• de lege ferenda (on the law as it ought to be), but…• de sententia ferenda (on the judgment that should be

pronounced in any specific situation) it will be very difficult to say anything certain.

• writing in English…• (which is not your native language)…• thereby giving your thesis a wider spread than if it had been in

Icelandic (or even worse: in Danish)…• a spread which it certainly deserves!

kristinn már reynisson’s ph.d. defence aarhus university, denmark department of law, aarhus bss...

Documents