Sweden gave data centers a 97% tax cut.
Skatteverket took it back.
One coordinated EU-level claim against Sweden — pooling operators, investors, and bankrupted companies into a single litigation vehicle.
Receive DRA Memorandum47-page legal memorandum. Court rulings, EU precedent, damage analysis.
What follows is €10,000 worth of legal research. Yours for free.
A tax incentive introduced, relied upon, and withdrawn.
From 2015 to 2023, Sweden created a tax incentive, attracted investment, changed the rules by bureaucratic reinterpretation, and then abolished the scheme entirely. This timeline shows how — and where the claims arise.
Five claim categories. One coordinated action.
We bring together different types of affected parties. Your grievance may be with the state, with hyperscale beneficiaries, with partners, or with the advisors who failed you. All paths lead through the SPV.
Energy Tax Claims
Discriminatory exclusion from the 97% energy tax reduction. Colocation operators lost eligibility while hyperscalers kept full benefit (2018–2023).
VAT Recovery Claims
Non-refund or incorrect refund of input VAT on mining and data center operations. The Hedqvist ruling created a paradox that Skatteverket exploited.
Claims Against Swedish Partners
Companies that failed to deliver contractual obligations to data center operators — contributing to losses that compounded the tax damage.
Claims Against Advisors
Law firms and tax consultants who provided incorrect strategies — contributing to an estimated €100M in VAT leaks and triggering disputes against their own clients.
Claims Against Landlords & Local Partners
Landlords took your equipment. Local partners broke their contracts. Swedish courts were too slow to help.
How much are we talking about?
The energy tax differential between eligible and excluded operators is substantial and calculable from electricity consumption records.
Reduced rate vs standard rate. Excluded operators paid up to 65x more per kilowatt-hour than eligible facilities running the same workloads.
Estimated annual overpayment for a typical 10 MW colocation facility consuming ~87 GWh/year at the standard rate instead of the reduced rate.
Total estimated claimant damages across energy tax, VAT, partner failures, and advisor negligence claims for the 2018–2023 period.
Example recovery model
| Item | Example |
|---|---|
| Estimated aggregate damages | €450M |
| Litigation funder share (Omni Bridgeway) | 50% — €225M |
| Management share (KikoSpace AG) | 20% — €90M |
| Net to claimants (pro rata) | 30% — €135M |
Illustrative only. Actual recovery depends on litigation outcome, enforcement, and final funder terms. Legal costs are deducted before distribution.
Key authorities and precedent relied upon.
Multiple CJEU and Swedish Supreme Administrative Court rulings have found against Skatteverket on related tax questions. The European Commission has opened infringement proceedings against Sweden on tax discrimination. The colocation exclusion has not yet been the subject of a formal challenge.
HFD 2022 Ref. 5
Sweden's Supreme Court overturned Skatteverket's interpretation of the exact same Energy Tax Act. Crypto mining qualifies as "datorhall." Colocation can too.
Commission v. Sweden (2025)
The EU Commission referred Sweden to the CJEU in May 2025 for discriminatory tax withholding rules. They're already looking at Swedish tax practices.
Riksrevisionen Audit
Sweden's own auditor confirmed the policy failed. Benefits went to a few large foreign companies. The reform was "not socioeconomically profitable."
Lexel v. Skatteverket (CJEU)
The EU's highest court ruled Sweden's tax rules violated freedom of establishment. Direct precedent for striking down discriminatory Swedish tax measures.
Hedqvist v. Skatteverket (CJEU)
Skatteverket challenged a taxpayer-favorable tax ruling at the CJEU — and lost. The Court held that EU tax exemptions are "independent concepts of EU law" that Member States cannot reinterpret unilaterally. Same procedural path. This precedent supports the DRA's legal theory.
France Proves It Works
France reduced energy tax for ALL data centers — including colocation — under EU-approved GBER rules. Sweden was the only country to discriminate.
2018 Reinterpretation — The Primary Case
Colocation operators excluded overnight by administrative interpretation. Hyperscalers kept full benefit. Never challenged in court.
2023 Abolition — Separate EU Violation
Sweden removed tax benefits from data centers while keeping them for manufacturing. 65x higher tax. Only EU/EEA country to abolish. A separate Article 107 TFEU violation.
Additional authorities identified
Further cases and administrative rulings documented in the DRA Memorandum, available to qualified participants after initial consultation.
Preliminary opinion by external counsel.
The DRA's legal theory has been reviewed by Mannheimer Swartling (Swedish law) and Van Bael & Bellis (EU state aid). Their preliminary analysis supports the viability of the claims on the following grounds:
Selective advantage to hyperscalers
The 2018 reinterpretation excluded colocation operators while retaining benefits for larger facilities — a potentially selective measure under Article 107(1) TFEU requiring Commission notification.
Energy Tax Act interpretation
HFD 2022 ref. 5 established that cryptocurrency mining qualifies under the data center tax reduction. Skatteverket's narrower interpretation was overturned by Sweden's Supreme Administrative Court.
Quantifiable overpayment
Excluded operators paid the standard rate (~36 öre/kWh) instead of the reduced rate (~0.5 öre/kWh) — a 65x differential. Damages are calculable from electricity consumption records and tax filings.
Full legal opinion available under NDA to qualified participants. This summary does not constitute legal advice.
5 companies. 5 countries. €2.2M in claims.
The Datorhall Recovery Alliance already has active members with documented claims across Europe. Active participants with documented claims. Additional members under NDA.
TMG
Active DRA member with documented energy tax and operational claims.
MCS
Active DRA member with documented claims against Swedish counterparties.
Contrada
Active DRA member with documented claims related to Swedish data center operations.
Listwa sp. z o.o.
Active DRA member with documented claims against Swedish operators and landlords.
Kiko Svenska AB
Founding member. Direct experience with Swedish insolvency and tax recovery proceedings.
Founding memberLeadership
Dzianis Kryvashei
Owner of KikoSpace AG (CHE-113.539.846), Glarus, Switzerland. Track record of winning precedent-setting cases in Sweden that local lawyers refused to take.
Education. Experience. Results.
Diploma independently verifiable at verify.unisg.ch
“I don’t just research claims — I execute them. Here’s proof.”
Media Coverage
Professional structure, not a startup.
The DRA is organized with dedicated roles across legal, financial, and operational functions — standard practice for institutional litigation vehicles.
Project Lead
Dzianis Kryvashei (KikoSpace AG). Operational leadership, claimant coordination, strategy execution.
Legal Advisory
Mannheimer Swartling (Swedish law). Van Bael & Bellis (EU state aid & competition).
Litigation Funding
Omni Bridgeway. Due diligence, case evaluation, and full financial backing on a no-win, no-fee basis.
Claimant Committee
Elected representatives from participating operators. Oversight of strategy decisions, settlement terms, and fund distributions.
8 years. Zero challenges filed. We're changing that.
The DRA is operated by KikoSpace AG (Switzerland) through a dedicated Swiss SPV — a separate, ring-fenced vehicle built exclusively for this litigation. KikoSpace founded the SPV and provides operational leadership.
The DRA is led by Dzianis Kryvashei — MA in International Law, University of St. Gallen (HSG), Switzerland. A qualified lawyer and insolvency practitioner with specialist training in EU regulatory frameworks. An insolvency practitioner with direct experience recovering assets in Swedish proceedings, including cases initially assessed as unrecoverable.
Purpose-Built Litigation Vehicle
The DRA operates through a dedicated Swiss SPV — ring-fenced from other activities. Claimants assign their claims to the SPV and receive equity proportional to their documented damages. Clean, transparent, investor-ready.
Won Where Others Wouldn't Try
Swedish lawyers told us our cases were unwinnable. We achieved multiple legal precedents in Sweden over the past three years — including full debt recovery through bankruptcy proceedings (Bräcke Fastigheter, 2023).
EU-First, Not Sweden-First
62% of Swedish tax attorneys report systemic bias in administrative courts toward Skatteverket (source: Rättvis Skatteprocess, 2023). The DRA's strategy therefore focuses on EU-level proceedings — the European Commission and CJEU — where Sweden has an unfavorable track record in comparable tax cases.
International Law, Not Local Caution
MA in International Law from the University of St. Gallen (HSG), Switzerland. Specialized in EU regulatory frameworks. This is not a case for Swedish domestic litigation — it is an EU state aid case, and we are built for it.
Deepest Research on This Case
We built the most comprehensive evidence base ever assembled: 10+ Skatteverket court defeats documented, EU precedents mapped, damage model constructed, comparative analysis across EU member states completed.
We Hold Everyone Accountable
Our investigation uncovered that Swedish law firms provided unprofessional services to data center operators, contributing to an estimated €100M in VAT leaks and triggering legal disputes against the very operators they were supposed to protect.
| Swedish Law Firm | DRA Litigation Pool | |
|---|---|---|
| Your cost | €50,000–200,000+ per company | €1,000/year — Omni Bridgeway covers the rest |
| If you lose | You pay everything | Funder absorbs all costs — no-win, no-fee |
| Forum | Swedish courts — 62% of tax attorneys say biased toward Skatteverket | EU Commission + CJEU — established precedent |
| Claim strength | One company, one claim — easy to ignore | Pooled portfolio — growing coalition worldwide |
| Track record against Skatteverket | Advised clients not to fight | Won cases Swedish lawyers called impossible |
| Conflict of interest | Same firms that gave bad advice now want your case | Independent — we also hold advisors accountable |
| Structure | Hourly billing, no alignment | SPV with shared equity — we win only when you win |
Two ways to participate.
We designed a two-stage process so you can engage at your comfort level. No binding commitments are required at the initial stage.
Option A — Non-binding registration
Provide basic information to estimate your claim and join the damages pool. No fees, no commitment, no claim assignment.
- Company name and jurisdiction
- Electricity consumption (kWh/year)
- Period affected (2017–2023)
- Claim categories applicable
Purpose: estimate the damages pool and demonstrate portfolio scale to funders.
Option B — Binding claim assignment
Formally assign your claims to the SPV and receive equity proportional to your documented damages. EUR 1,000/year membership covers operational costs.
- Claim assignment agreement signed
- Equity in SPV proportional to damages
- External counsel review completed
- Funding agreement in place
Binding participation only after: funding secured, counsel confirmed, eligibility assessed.
Process overview
Book a Call
Confidential discussion under mutual NDA. We assess your situation and identify applicable claim categories.
Register Your Interest
Non-binding registration. Provide electricity data and affected period. Receive the DRA Memorandum with full legal analysis.
Portfolio Assembly
As registrations grow, we present the portfolio to Omni Bridgeway for due diligence and formal funding agreement.
Litigation & Recovery
Once funded, participants who opt in assign claims to the SPV. EU Commission complaint and national proceedings filed. Recovery distributed pro rata.
Transparent from day one.
The DRA operates through a dedicated Swiss SPV. Claimants assign their claims and receive equity. Recovery flows through the SPV to all stakeholders. Your EUR 1,000/year membership is separate — it covers operational costs, not equity.
| Stakeholder | Equity | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Omni Bridgeway | 50% | Fund all major legal costs. Assume 100% financial risk. No-win, no-fee. |
| Claimants | 30% | Assign claims to SPV. Equity distributed pro rata to documented damages. |
| Management | 20% | Founded the SPV. Provides operational leadership, legal strategy, and coordination. |
How third-party funding works.
Most operators have never used litigation funding. Here is how the process works — and why it exists.
Portfolio assembled
The DRA aggregates claims and builds a portfolio with documented damages, legal theory, and supporting evidence.
Funder due diligence
Omni Bridgeway independently evaluates the legal merits, damages quantum, enforcement prospects, and expected timeline.
Funding agreement signed
If approved, Omni Bridgeway commits capital to cover all legal costs. Terms are fixed before any claims are assigned.
Litigation filed
EU Commission complaint and/or national proceedings initiated. The funder bears 100% of the financial risk. If the case fails, participants owe nothing.
Omni Bridgeway is one of the world's largest litigation funders, listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX: OBL). They have funded claims exceeding US$30 billion globally across 25+ countries.
What you should know before joining.
The DRA is transparent about the uncertainties involved. Prospective participants should consider the following before making any commitment.
No guarantee of filing or recovery
Litigation may not proceed if funding, participant thresholds, or legal conditions are not met. There is no guarantee of any financial recovery.
Multi-year proceedings
EU state aid litigation typically takes 3–5 years. Participants should not expect near-term results. Delays and procedural setbacks are possible.
Recovery depends on enforcement
Even a favorable ruling requires enforcement proceedings. Collection from sovereign entities involves additional legal and practical challenges.
Individual claim assessment required
Not all claims will qualify. Eligibility depends on specific circumstances, documentation, and applicable limitation periods. Assessment is made after consultation.
Funder terms affect net recovery
Litigation funders receive equity in the SPV in exchange for covering costs. Net recovery to claimants depends on the final funding terms and total costs incurred.
Claims assigned to SPV
Participants assign their claims to the litigation vehicle. This means the SPV — not the individual — controls the legal strategy and settlement decisions.
Adverse publicity risk
Challenging a sovereign state's tax authority may attract attention. Participants should consider reputational implications for their business.
Past rulings do not guarantee outcomes
While Skatteverket has lost comparable cases at the CJEU and in Swedish courts, each case is assessed on its own facts. Prior outcomes are not predictive.
What happens next.
A clear timeline so participants know what to expect at each stage.
Your doubts, addressed.
SPV stands for Special Purpose Vehicle — a Swiss-registered company created exclusively to pursue the DRA litigation. It owns the assigned claims, manages the legal proceedings, receives any recovery, and distributes it to stakeholders according to their equity share. The SPV is ring-fenced from all other activities, which is standard practice in litigation funding.
Five categories: (1) Energy tax claims — discriminatory exclusion from the 97% reduction; (2) VAT recovery claims — non-refund of input VAT on mining and data center operations; (3) Claims against Swedish partners who failed contractual obligations; (4) Claims against law firms and consultants who provided incorrect strategies; (5) Claims against landlords and local partners who seized equipment, locked facility access, or failed contractual obligations — exploiting the vulnerability of foreign investors. You may have claims in one or multiple categories.
Colocation operators, cryptocurrency mining operators, investors who funded data center projects based on the promised tax regime, companies that went bankrupt due to the tax changes, and anyone who suffered losses from bad advice by Swedish lawyers or consultants regarding data center tax structures. If you were affected between 2017 and 2023, you likely qualify.
EUR 1,000 per year. Flat fee, same for all members regardless of company size. Annual renewal with no long-term lock-in. This covers shared legal counsel, EU filings, expert reports, and coordination. Major litigation costs are funded by Omni Bridgeway — not by you.
Omni Bridgeway absorbs all major legal costs. Your maximum exposure is the membership fees you've already paid — EUR 1,000 to 3,000 over 1–3 years. No additional costs, no tax liabilities. You can stop renewing at any annual renewal point.
Our research identifies at least 10 cases where Skatteverket's position was overruled — including by the CJEU (Lexel, Hedqvist), the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court on the same Energy Tax Act (HFD 2022 ref. 5), and enforcement proceedings where the state was ordered to pay. Past outcomes do not guarantee future results, but the pattern of adverse rulings against Skatteverket on related questions supports the legal theory.
No. Swedish tort claims have a 10-year prescription period. The discrimination began in September 2018 — claims remain viable through at least 2028. The abolition occurred in July 2023 — those claims are viable through 2033. EU Commission complaints have no formal time limit. But earlier is better — act now.
No. This is one of the most important facts. Despite clear discrimination and documented damage, no formal EU state aid complaint has ever been filed and Skatteverket's 2018 position statement was never challenged in court. The Finance Minister herself acknowledged it "could be subject to court review." The DRA would be first movers.
Omni Bridgeway receives 50% equity in the SPV in exchange for funding all major litigation costs — hundreds of thousands of euros upfront with no guarantee. EU state aid litigation is complex, multi-jurisdictional, and takes 3–5 years. If the case fails, they absorb the loss entirely. The 50% share reflects high risk, long timelines, and substantial capital commitment. Without third-party funding, each claimant would need EUR 20,000–50,000+ individually.
For context: one hour of EU state aid legal counsel costs EUR 400–800. An individual legal challenge costs EUR 50,000–200,000+. The annual energy tax loss for a 5MW colocation facility was EUR 200,000–600,000. EUR 1,000/year gives you access to shared EU-level legal representation that would be unaffordable individually.
Realistic timeline: pool formation in 3–6 months, EU Commission complaint filed within a year, national court proceedings in 12–24 months, and primary resolution in 3–5 years. The Commission complaint and national proceedings run in parallel. Interest accrues on damages, so delayed resolution increases recovery.
Absolutely. Small operators may have the strongest moral case — customers under 100kW were completely excluded. In a litigation pool, your costs are EUR 1,000/year regardless of size. Your claim adds to aggregate damages, making the case more attractive to funders. Every participant strengthens the coalition.
DRA Memorandum
Our comprehensive legal analysis, damage calculations, EU precedent mapping, and strategic roadmap — the most detailed document ever produced on this case. Exclusively for qualified participants.