All Posts By

Cathrine Modig

Judgment of the Swedish Supreme Court on the right to severance pay on termination of distribution agreements

The Swedish Supreme Court has recently tried which period of notice should be considered reasonable upon the termination of a distribution agreement with a duration of 22 years, and whether the distributor is entitled to compensation for goodwill in terms of a severance pay.

The case concerned a claim for compensation from a distributor against a supplier, after the supplier terminated the distribution agreement. The claim was based on the fact that the supplier had given a six-month notice period which, according to the distributor, was too short. Furthermore, the distributor claimed severance pay for the goodwill that he had contributed to.

Regarding the question of a reasonable notice period, the Court found that in the case of long-term contractual relationships in the neighboring law-regulated areas, there are provisions which imply a six-month notice period. A rule of thumb should consequently be that the distributor is entitled to a six-month notice period when terminating a long-term distribution agreement which lacks an agreed period of notice. Circumstances in the individual case can, however, lead to the conclusion that another notice period should be considered fair. This may be the case if relevant trade customs indicate differently or if the distributor only has a limited need for protection. In the present case the Court held that the period of notice was to be considered fair.

Regarding the question of severance pay upon the termination of a distribution agreement, the Court held that the distributor has no expressed legal right thereto. However, the Court found that distributors may receive severance pay in analogy with the Commercial Agency Act or similar legislation. Such an analogous application should, the Court continued, only be considered when the distributor’s need for protection comes across as particularly strong. An example of such a situation is when the distributor holds a weak position in relation to the supplier. In the present case the Court concluded that there was no need for such protection, and severance pay was therefore not to be dispersed.

The verdict thus provides us with a notion as to which period of notice that should be considered fair when terminating a long-term distribution agreement, and clarifies that a six-month notice period, as a benchmark, shall be considered fair. Furthermore, the Court concludes that a potential right to severance pay only arises when the distributor’s need for protection in relation to the supplier comes across as particularly strong.

Proposal for a new order for enforcement of financial information for listed companies

In the proposal referred to the Council on Legislation for consideration A new order for enforcement of financial information it is proposed that the requirement put on the market places to supervise the regular financial information that listed companies publish shall be removed.

Instead, an option for split responsibility for supervision is proposed, through which the day-to-day supervision is handed over to an independent surveillance body. The Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (Sw. Finansinspektionen) shall however retain the ultimate responsibility and keep their authority in deciding on interventions in case of violations. The independent surveillance body shall be authorised to issue a fee from the supervised listed companies to fund the surveillance. The Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority has previously stated that the supervision should be delegated to The Swedish Financial Reporting Review Council, a body within The Association for Generally Accepted Practice in the Securities Market.

The amendments according to the proposal are proposed to take effect on 1 January 2019.

For further information, please see the following link (in Swedish):

https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/lagradsremiss/2018/03/en-ny-ordning-for-redovisningstillsyn/

New guidelines for administrative sanctions for late insider reporting

The Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (Sw. Finansinspektionen) has issued new guidelines for administrative sanctions for late insider reporting according to EU’s Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), see the following link (in Swedish): Riktlinjer för sanktionsavgifter vid sen insynsrapportering.

The guidelines contain among others a chart with model rates to be used as a basis in relation to the issue of administrative sanctions. The Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority will take the size of the transaction and the duration of the delay into account in their assessment. The guidelines will be applied to notifications submitted (and not to omitted notifications discovered by the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority, which are expressly not covered by the guidelines).

The guidelines will provide greater clarity and predictability as regards the ‘normal’ case of late insider reporting.

We are up and running!

HWF Advokater was established on 1 January 2018, but it originates in a business started in Helsingborg by Mannheimer & Zetterlöf in the 1980’s. A broad and long-term role as advisor has always been the trademark of this office and the lawyers who have worked here over the years have all conducted their work in this spirit. The so called ‘Helsingborg model’ stands for a combination of broad business law knowledge and experience, individual cutting-edge expertise and long-term client relations.

Read more here.

Läs mer

We are hiring Associates

We are continuously hiring both recently graduated lawyers and lawyers who have worked as law clerks. Here, your personality is as important as good formal merits. You will be a part of a close-knit team here at HWF and as such you need to be a team player. We presume that you have good judgement, a genuine interest to learn and develop as well as a good sense of quality.

Read more here. (länk till kärriärsidan)

Läs mer