The basic principle for limited companies is that the owners are not liable for the debts of the company. To protect the creditors of the company, however, a theory of personal liability for the owners has evolved, the so called piercing the corporate veil theory. For decades there have been disagreements wether or not it would be motivated to legislate the theory of piercing the corporate veil, and what this legislation might look like. The basic problems in my essay are: Is there a need to legislate the theory of piercing the corporate veil in Sweden? What would such a legislation look like in Sweden? To answer these questions I analyzed cases regarding the piercing the corporate veil theory, examined the theory in the USA and Germany and described how authors would like to answer these questions. My results are that there is a need to increase the liability that a parent company has for the debts of its subsidiary companies. This should be done by changing the rule in 15:3 ABL.