Scandinavia: A Flexible Future
A reformed Companies Act came into force in Finland at the beginning of September, designed to be more flexible than before. Tarja Wist and Sami Martola look at the details of the new legislation and what it means for companies doing business in Finland
September 27, 2006 at 08:03 PM
5 minute read
A major reform of the Companies Act of 1978 has been in preparation since 2001. The new Act finally came into force on 1 September, 2006. It is, overall, more flexible than its predecessor.
The new Act contains several modernisations, the most important of which include:
. liberalised regulations for the organisation of a limited company;
. elimination of the nominal value of shares;
. adjusted solvency requirements; and
. review of the provisions on directors'/ shareholders' liability.
Liberalised regulations for setting up and operating a limited company
Under the new Companies Act, the setting up of limited liability companies is more flexible and less formal than under the old legislation. For example, the articles of association of a limited company need only contain the articles regarding the name, domicile and objects of the company. Other matters, such as the financial period, the auditing of the company and the convening of the general meeting of shareholders, is covered by standard provisions laid down in the new Companies Act. Any deviations from the standard provisions will have to be included in the articles of association. Procedural regulations for convening the general meeting of shareholders have been relaxed as well. The meetings need no longer to be held in Finland and the provisions relating to notices to convene the meetings are more flexible.
In addition to the above amendments, the process of setting up a private limited liability company is further facilitated by a lowered share capital requirement. Under the new Companies Act, private limited liability companies are required to have a share capital of only €2,500 (£1,680) (in comparison with €8,000 (£5,380) required previously). However, the requirement for a share capital of €80,000 (£53,800) for public companies has remained unchanged.
Elimination of the nominal value of shares The new Companies Act introduces a significant reform of the previous capital structure by eliminating the nominal value of shares. Pursuant to the old Companies Act, the nominal value of shares could be determined in the company's articles as a fixed amount or be calculated by dividing the fully paid-up share capital by the number of shares issued (book counter-value).
Under the new Act, the connection between the share capital and the rights related to shares has been abolished and a share neither has a nominal value or a book counter-value nor does it represent a specific portion of a company's share capital.
Therefore, it is possible to increase the share capital of a company without issuing new shares and, correspond-ingly, new shares may be issued without increasing the share capital. In addition, the elimination of the nominal value/ book counter-value has also eliminated the minimum subscription price per share to be observed in connection with a new issue of shares.
Adjusted solvency requirements
Under the new Companies Act, the previous categorical minimum equity ratio requirements have been replaced by a general provision limiting the distribution of company funds if it is known, or ought to be known, that the company is insolvent or that it will, as a result of the distribution, become insolvent.
According to the travaux preparatories of the new Companies Act, the provision is aimed at securing the operations of the company and thereby enhancing the protection of the creditors.
In connection with the above amendments, the strict regulation of loans granted to persons close to the company (the so-called inner circle), designed to prevent possible abuses of the distribution of assets, has been abolished.
Furthermore, the provisions concerning the purchase of own shares under the old Companies Act have been liberalised.
Review of the provisions on directors' and shareholders' liability Much-debated amendments have been made to the regulation of directors' and shareholders' liability for financial loss/damages suffered by the company under the new Companies Act. According to the Act, a director of a Finnish limited liability company committing an unlawful act, an act contrary to the articles of association or an act unfairly favouring someone close to the company will, with respect to financial loss caused by such actions, be presumed to have acted negligently unless proven otherwise.
Furthermore, under the new Act the shareholders are granted a right to bring actions against apparently unlawful resolutions of the board of directors, even where the resolution in the matter is based upon authorisation by the general meeting of the shareholders.
Shareholders' liability for damages is more stringent under the new Companies Act, since simple negligence, as opposed to gross negligence, is enough to create liability.
The new Companies Act is a welcomed reform that introduces new possibilities with regard to mergers and acquisitions as well as to other transactions. However, taxation issues have not yet been updated to correspond with the amendments to the Companies Act and therefore may, to some extent, restrict the possibilities of the new Companies Act.
Time will tell how the most radical reforms, such as the amendments to directors' liability, will work in practice.
Tarja Wist is a partner and Sami Martola an associate at Waselius & Wist in Helsinki.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWill a Market Dominated by Small- to Mid-Cap Deals Give Rise to This Dark Horse US Firm in China?
Big Law Sidelined as Asian IPOs in New York Dominated by Small Cap Listings
X-odus: Why Germany’s Federal Court of Justice and Others Are Leaving X
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250