2025-08-18

Lindahl wins in the Supreme Court - bankruptcy cancelled for debt-free company

Lindahl has successfully represented ParkingSolar Nordic AB in a bankruptcy dispute that was decided in the company's favour by the Supreme Court. The case raises important questions about when presumption rules for insolvency can be applied.

On 11 July 2025, the Supreme Court overturned a bankruptcy decision for ParkingSolar Nordic AB after Lindahl appealed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The case concerned a company that was declared bankrupt even though it was not insolvent.

Background to the case

The Swedish Tax Agency filed for bankruptcy for ParkingSolar Nordic AB with reference to overdue tax debts of approximately SEK 300,000, which mainly related to taxes incurred through discretionary taxation. In a previous enforcement, the company had been found to lack assets, which provided grounds for applying the presumption of insolvency under the Bankruptcy Act.

The District Court declared the company bankrupt, a judgement that was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal. Lindahl appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Crucial turnaround

During the Court of Appeal's proceedings, the Swedish Tax Agency cancelled the previous discretionary assessment, which meant that the attachment claim was reduced to a significantly lower amount than that on which the original attachment attempt was based. After the undisputed part of the claim had been paid, the Swedish Tax Agency declared that the company no longer had any debts to the State.

The Supreme Court's decision

The Supreme Court found that the presumption of insolvency could not be invoked when the distraint claim had been reduced so significantly. Since the company had no known debts beyond the filing fee and bankruptcy costs - which may not be taken into account when assessing insolvency - the company was not insolvent.

The bankruptcy decision was therefore annulled by the Supreme Court.

Fundamentally important decision

The case clarifies important issues regarding the application of presumption rules for insolvency, in particular when the attachment claim is significantly reduced after the initial attachment attempt. The ruling also shows the importance of carefully assessing whether the conditions for bankruptcy are actually met.

The company was represented by lawyer Karin Sliwinska Helge from the Örebro office.