Comparison between the SUP-company and the Swedish Private Company 

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

The opinion of the National Board of Trade (Kommerskollegium)

The National Board of Trade, hereinafter referred to as the Board, is a Swedish authority responsible for matters concerning foreign trade, the Internal Market and trade policy, working to encourage an open and free trade with distinct rules. Their aims are to contrib-ute to a well functioning Internal Market, an external trade policy in EU based on free trade, and an open and strong versatile trading system.86
The Board is in general positive to actions that might ease for the single-member compa-nies to establish themselves on the Internal Market, by making it easier and cheaper than currently is the case. The Board believes that this could lead to future growth of SMEs.87

The opinion of the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (Tillväxtverket)

The Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth, hereinafter referred to as the Agency, is a governmental authority organized under the Ministry of Enterprise and Inno-vation, with the mission to promote sustainable business development and regional growth, as well as to enforce structural fund programs.88
The Agency is overall positive with the aim of the proposed directive, which they believe will lead to increased growth and employment. However, the Agency finds some uncertain-ties regarding the directives connection to existing national legislation, e.g. within Company Law; the current company forms, and within Common Law; the personal responsibility and the protection of creditors. For these reasons, the Agency advises a deeper analysis regard-ing the actual affect the proposal will have on Swedish legislation. The Agency is specifical-ly underlining the importance of the creditor protection, seeing the importance of a com-pany’s opportunities to access external capital.89

The opinion of the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (Svenskt Näringsliv)

The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise, the Confederation in the following, is the com-panies’ representative in Sweden. Their long-term goal is to reclaim a leading position in the international prosperity league. The Confederation believes that a great business envi-ronment is fundamental for the enterprises’ growth and employment, and is needed to achieve this goal.90
The Confederation gives the following preliminary opinion on the proposal. In contrast with the SPE, the SUP will not become an independent European company form, but the SUP will be a national company from with harmonized requirement. The Confederation comprehends the proposed directive as if it is up to each Member State to choose how to implement the SUP into the national legislation, whether it will become a new company form besides the existing, or be the only possible national company form for single-member companies. According to the Confederation, Sweden shall pick the first alterna-tive, i.e. a new company form besides the already existing ones. This alternative will mean great flexibility for companies and shareholders and will be a possible way for them to best match the company’s business idea when setting up a new subsidiarity.91
However, the Confederation finds that the abbreviation SUP is not appropriate in Sweden, seeing “SUP” is a Swedish word. The Confederation means, the result of using this abbre-viation for Swedish companies will be that these companies may be considered as less seri-ous. The Confederation therefore suggests that another abbreviation shall be chosen.

READ  Active set descent for the regularized LASSO

1 Introduction
1.1 Background .
1.2 Purpose
1.3 Delimitations
1.4 Method & Materials
1.5 Outline .
2 What is SUP? .
2.1 The Principle of Subsidiarity
2.2 The Principle of Proportionality
2.3 Legal basis .
2.4 The SUP
3 Comparison between the SUP-company and the Swedish Private Company 
3.1 Capital requirement .
3.2 The registration procedure
3.2.1 The Swedish Private Company
3.2.2 SUP-company.
3.3 Organization
3.3.1 The Swedish Private Company
3.3.2 SUP-company
3.4 Summary of the comparison
4 SUP – advantages and disadvantages 
4.1 Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee
4.2 Swedish authorities’ opinions
4.2.1 The opinion of the Government Offices of Sweden (Regeringskansliet)
4.2.2 The opinion of the National Board of Trade (Kommerskollegium)
4.2.3 The opinion of the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (Tillväxtverket)
4.2.4 The opinion of the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (Svenskt Näringsliv)
4.2.5 The opinion of the Swedish Companies Registration Office (Bolagsverket)
4.2.6 The opinion of the Swedish Enforcement Authority (Kronofogden)
4.3 Summary of the opinions .
5 Analysis
5.1 Regulation or directive?
5.2 Comparison with SPE
5.3 The SUP-proposal
6 Conclusions

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
Is there a need for a new European company form?

Related Posts