Securities litigation has historically been rare in Sweden. Unlike jurisdictions such as the United States or the Netherlands, Swedish law has traditionally offered limited procedural mechanisms and relatively high evidentiary thresholds for investors seeking damages from listed companies. However, this landscape may be changing as institutional investors increasingly test the boundaries of private enforcement in the securities markets.
The Ericsson Case: Privilege, Disclosure and Procedural Delay
A prominent example is the ongoing litigation involving Ericsson that we have previously reported on. Beyond the substantive allegations, the case raised an important procedural question concerning how courts should balance transparency in civil litigation with the protection of legal privilege. The dispute over whether internal investigation materials must be disclosed highlights the tension between investor access to evidence and companies’ ability to conduct confidential internal investigations. The timeline of the case was expected to be prolonged due to an appeal of an interim decision concerning disclosure to the Swedish Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court decided in March 2026 that they will not review the issue, so the second instance decision stands (the internal report remains confidential). The main case before the district court is expected to proceed with a hearing likely sometime in 2027.
This procedural development illustrates a broader structural feature of complex securities litigation in jurisdictions where such claims have historically been uncommon. Questions relating to evidence and privilege may need to be clarified at the appellate level before courts can move forward with the substantive aspects of investor claims. In practice, this means that early procedural disputes can have a significant impact on the overall duration of proceedings.
A Broader Shift Across Scandinavia
More broadly, the Ericsson case reflects a gradual shift in the Scandinavian legal landscape. Investor actions against listed companies, once uncommon in the region, are becoming more frequent as institutional investors, litigation funders and specialised law firms increasingly collaborate to pursue recovery claims.
Developments in other Swedish cases also demonstrate increased scrutiny of corporate disclosures. We have previously reported on the case of former Swedbank CEO Birgitte Bonnesen, who was found guilty of gross fraud by the Svea Court of Appeal in 2024. The case concerned misleading public statements about the bank’s exposure to money laundering risks in the Baltics. The verdict has been appealed and is currently being reviewed by the Swedish Supreme Court, with a judgment expected in the summer of 2026.
While the Swedbank case arises in a criminal context rather than civil investor litigation, it nevertheless highlights the growing judicial focus on the accuracy of communications made by listed companies to the market. Together with cases such as Ericsson, it forms part of a broader development in which accountability for disclosure failures is receiving increased attention.
Sweden remains far from the scale of securities litigation seen in the United States. Nevertheless, cases such as Ericsson suggest that private enforcement of market misconduct may become a more visible feature of the Nordic capital markets in the coming years.
