Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 09.10.1985 1057 AI generated

Lawyer's self-dealing transaction voided due to conflict of interest and gross disparity in value.

Case Number Helsingin HO 09.10.1985 1057
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court declared the transfer of shares invalid because the lawyer, dependent on his principal, exploited the principal's lack of understanding to secure a grossly disproportionate financial benefit. The lawyer acquired half the shares for their nominal value of 12,500 marks, despite the company owning another enterprise worth 50 million marks with valuable real estate. The court ruled the transaction void as it constituted clear self-dealing that harmed the principal's interests.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

s. 57 of the Companies Act 1961; s. 10 of the Civil Code: A transaction where a lawyer exploits a principal's lack of understanding to secure a grossly disproportionate benefit is void due to conflict of interest and lack of genuine consent.

Keywords

AI generated
conflict of interest self-dealing transaction lawyer's fiduciary duty gross disparity in value voidable contract exploitation of ignorance share transfer invalidity

Cited Legislation

AI generated
s. 57 of the Companies Act 1961
s. 10 of the Civil Code
AI generated
kko-other_2000_1266
Shareholder liability dismissed when parent company assets transferred and claims deemed worthless.
kko-precedent_2003_9
Supreme Court allows prosecution for concealment crime despite victim's initial theft charge only.
kko-precedent_1995_163
Supreme Court dismisses fraud charge when company funds were privately taken before bankruptcy and not listed as assets.
kko-precedent_2005_91
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on litigation costs, ruling the plaintiff's claim against the law firm was not obviously groundless.
appeal_1980_eastern-finland__369
Court dismissed claim that land sale was sham to transfer ownership jointly despite single name on deed.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Asianajaja, jonka asiantuntemuksesta päämies oli ollut riippuvainen, oli käyttäen hyväkseen päämiehensä ymmärtämättömyyttä edustanut itselleen aineellista etua, joka oli ilmeisessä epäsuhteessa siihen mitä hän itse oli myöntänyt.

Asianajaja oli saanut siirtokirjalla omistukseensa puolet osakeyhtiön osakkeista vain niiden 12.500 markan nimellisarvoa vastaan, vaikka osakeyhtiö omisti erään toisen yhtiön koko osakekannan, jonka substanssiarvo oli yritystutkimuksen mukaan 50 milj. mk ja jonka omaisuuteen kuului mm. arvokkaita kiinteistöjä.

Osakkeiden luovutusta koskeva siirtokirja julistettiin pätemättömäksi.

Läsnä: Hiltunen, Vallinrinne ja Lahti Esittelijä: Mikkola

KKO:n ratkaisu: Ei valituslupaa Päätös n:o 1196/8.4.1986