- What is the Corporate Counsel 100?
- How to nominate in-house counsel
- Australia/New Zealand
- Asia Pacific
- Latin America
- Middle East
- UK Regional Powerlist
- United Kingdom
- United Kingdom - Rising Stars
- United States
- United States - Rising Stars
- How do the awards work?
- The Legal 500 United Kingdom Awards 2014
- The Legal 500 United States Awards - In-house winners
- The Legal 500 United States Awards - Law firm winners
- The Legal 500 Latin America Awards (coming soon)
- Microsite The Legal 500 Germany Awards (coming soon)
- Frequently asked questions
- Editor's Letter
- Inside GC: Executive Summary
- In-house survey 2014
- A dangerous game of bluff
- From client to colleague
- Harvard thinking
- How to be Chief Executive of your own career
- Rules of engagement
- The 5-minute financial analysis
- The third way
- The world's greatest management thinker: Clayton Christensen
- What I wish I'd known: moving in-house
- What's your IP strategy?
- Corporate Counsel 100 Brazil roundtable
- Mexico City: Corporate Counsel 100 discussion
- The Legal 500 Corporate Counsel Summit
- Corporate Counsel 100 United States roundtable
- General Counsel: United States
- Intellectual property: debate
- Risk management
- Private equity
- Data security
- Leadership and management
- Intellectual property
Search News and Articles
Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
By Pia Pehrson, partner, and Pelle Stubelius, associate; Foyen Advokatfirma
A recent Court of Appeal case illustrates the risk that parties (and their counsel) run when an agreement is governed by a law of a different language from that used in the agreement itself. Due to the chairman's casting vote, the otherwise split decision came down in favour of one dictionary translation.
Update and trends
In the first case of its kind to be decided by a higher court in Sweden, the Court of Appeal finds no probable cause for infringement where a competitor’s trade mark was used for keyword advertising on Googles AdWords service.
In a noteworthy ruling the Northern Norrland Court of Appeal had to consider two interesting questions regarding commercial agents:
New Swedish closely related party rules for listed companies: On 31 January 2012, the Swedish Securities Council issued a new set of closely related party rules which may have a substantial impact on the business and ownership of listed companies in Sweden. Partners Peder Grandinson and Ulf Grubbström of Hammarskiöld & Co comment on the new rules and possible consequences thereof.
Swedish Competition Authority
Industrial activities are of great importance to Europe’s financial wealth. Industrial emissions, however, cause environmental pollution and industrial emissions constitute a major part of Europe’s total emissions to air, water and soil. Consequently, there is a need for regulation of industrial operations at an EU level. Partner Erica Nobel and associate Christina Hellström comment on the new legislation and the possible consequences thereof.
Swedish state aid news
Effective July 1st, 2012, the new revised Swedish legislation on bribery entered into force. The last time this area was more thoroughly revised was in 1977. The previous regulation was criticized for being both inaccessible and outdated.