1. Kristinn Már Reynisson’s Ph.D. defence Aarhus University, Denmark Department of Law, Aarhus BSS Tuesday 1 December 2015, at 13:00 Professor, dr. jur. ERIK WERLAUFF Aalborg University, Denmark 1(c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff

2. 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’? (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff2

3. Please define/explain. 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). (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff3

4. Please define/explain. 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? (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff4

5. 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? (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff5

6. 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. (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff6

7. 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? (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff7

8. 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 förpliktelser mot borgenärerna och beror detta på att en delägare begagnat sitt inflytande över bolaget på ett gentemot borgenärerna otillbörligt sätt, svarar delägaren solidariskt med bolaget för 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.” (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff8

9. Sweden, and SOU 1987:59. Sweden – what was suggested in SOU 1987:59 on ’ansvarsgenombrott’ (’piercing the veil’) ABL § 1 a (2). ”Ansvar inträder dock inte i annat fall än då bolagets ekonomiska underlag varit uppenbart otillräckligt i förhållande till verksamhetens art och omfattning samt till förutsebara 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.” (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff9

10. Sweden, and SOU 1987:59. Sweden – what was suggested in SOU 1987:59 on ’ansvarsgenombrott’ (’piercing the veil’) ABL § 1 a (3). ”För förpliktelser på grund av avtal med viss borgenär inträder ej ansvar för delägare, som gjort vad som på honom skäligen ankommit för att upplysa borgenären om bolagets ekonomiska förhållanden.” ”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”. (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff10

11. Sweden, and SOU 1987:59. Sweden – how did it all end? – Kap. 25, § 19 ”En aktieägare som med vetskap om att bolaget är skyldigt att gå i likvidation enligt 17 § första stycket deltar i ett beslut att fortsätta bolagets verksamhet ansvarar solidariskt med dem som svarar enligt 18 § för de förpliktelser som uppkommer för 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”. (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff11

12. Sweden, and SOU 1987:59. Questions whatever became of the good intentions from SOU 1987:59? in your opinion, is this satisfactory? what happened? (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff12

13. 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) (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff13

14. Article 191(2) TFEU, and the PPP. 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 på miljøområdet tager sigte på et højt beskyttelsesniveau under hensyntagen til de forskelligartede forhold, der gør sig gældende i de forskellige områder i Unionen. Den bygger på forsigtighedsprincippet og princippet om forebyggende indsats, princippet om indgreb over for miljøskader fortrinsvis ved kilden og princippet om, at forureneren betaler. (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff14

15. Article 191(2) TFEU, and the PPP. 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? (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff15

16. 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!) (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff16

17. 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’? (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff17

18. 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 (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff18

19. 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 (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff19

20. 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! (c) Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff20