Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:09:04.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Private International Law of Business Organisations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Daniel Zimmer
Daniel Zimmer
Affiliation:
Dr. iur., Professor of law, Ruhr University Bochum Faculty of Law.
Get access

Extract

The private international law of business organisations is a difficult field. It is difficult in its core as well as at its periphery. The core question is the one of appropriate conflict rules for business organisations. The two best-known concepts are the incorporation theory and the seat theory. Either approach is followed by a number of states, but neither appears wholly persuasive. The discussion of appropriate conflict rules will also have to take into account concepts which modify the one or the other “theory” or try to combine elements of both. However, requirements for a satisfactory conflict rule in the field of the private international law of business organisations can already be defined (see infra section 2). An issue related to the core question arises due to the more specific requirements of European law. The creation of a business organisation involves the exercise of three rights guaranteed by the EC Treaty: the freedom of establishment (Articles 43 and 48), the freedom of capital transfer (Article 56) and the right of EU citizens to acquire shares on a non-discriminatory basis (Article 294). The impact of these provisions on national conflict rules is highly controversial. However, it seems clear that in the long run Member States will have to recognise companies validly formed in other Member States. Correspondingly it appears necessary to continuously harmonise the national laws of business organisations in important fields such as, for example, creditor protection. This harmonisation can be carried out by various means (see infra section 3). The periphery of our subject-matter addresses the question of the scope of the central conflict-of-laws rule for business organisations: which aspects of material law are included, and which follow different conflict-of-laws concepts? This question may be raised for matters as diverse as workers' codetermination rights and legal requirements for take-over bids. It is closely connected with the issues dealt with before: the better the necessary protection of creditors, investors and employees can be guaranteed independent of the status of a business organisation the less their respective interests can be used as an argument for or against the one “theory” of international company law or the other (see infra section 4).

Type
Articles
Information
European Business Organization Law Review (EBOR) , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , September 2000 , pp. 585 - 599
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press and the Authors 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Gasque v. I.R.C., 2K.B. 80; Dicey, and Morris, , The Conflicts of Laws, 13th ed., vol. 2 (2000) Rule 152 (1).Google Scholar

2 Cf. Wiedemann, , Gesellschaftsrecht, vol. 1 (1980), § 14 III a, aa (p. 783)Google Scholar; according to Wiedemann's theory which differentiates between a number of case groups, the seat of adminis- tration is decisive in some cases; cf. § 14 II 2 c, bb (p. 797).

3 Cf. Ebenroth, and Sura, , “Das Problem der Anerkennung im internationalen Gesellschaftsrecht”, 43 RabelsZ (1979) 315 at p. 324.Google Scholar

4 Cf. Sandrock, , “Die Multinationalen Korporationen im Internationalen Privatrecht”, 18 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht (1978) 169 at p. 238Google Scholar. However, Sandrock does not adhere to the seat theory; cf. infra for his theory. On the basis of the seat theory the above mentioned definition of the term has been used, e.g., by the Bundesgerichtshof see BGHZ 97, 269, 272 = 39 NJW (1986) 2194, 2195 = IPRspr. 1986 Nr. 19; Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 34 RIW (1988) 816; Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt a.M, 11 IPRax (1991) 403, 404; Oberlandesgericht Hamm, 43 RIW (1997) 236, 237Google Scholar; Großfeld, in: Staudinger, Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch – Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht, 13th ed. (1998), n. 228Google Scholar; Kindler, in: Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, vol. 11 – Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht, 3rd ed. (1999), n. 316 et seq.Google Scholar

5 For the UK cf. Dicey and Morris, supra n. 1, pp. 1101 et seq. and Hohloch in: Hohloch, (ed.), EU-Handbuch Gesellschaftsrecht (1997)Google Scholar, Vereinigtes Königreich no. 8 et seq.; for the Netherlands cf. Gotzen in: Behrens, (ed.), Die Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung im internationalen und europäischen Recht, 2nd ed. (1997), NL no. 55Google Scholar; for Switzerland cf. Art. 154(1) of the Act of December 1987 on Private International Law; for Denmark cf. Werlauff, , “Ausländische Gesellschaft für inländische Aktivität”, 20 ZIP (1999) 867 and at p. 874Google Scholar; Alsted and Hansen in: Hohloch (ed.), ibid., Dänemark no. 8; Carsten in: Behrens (ed.), ibid., DK no. 49 (appropriateness of the incorporation law for the recognition of mandatorily registrable associations).

6 For Belgium, Art. 197 Code de Commerce and also Bours and Hermant in: Jassogne, , Traité Pratique de Droit Commercial, vol. 4 (1998) no. 45Google Scholar; cf. already Lutter, , Die GmbH in Belgien (1965), pp. 56 et seq.Google Scholar; for France, Art. 3 Loi no. 66-537 sur les sociétés commerciales of 24 July 1966 and also Guyon, , Droit des affaires, 10th ed., vol. 1 (1998) n. 178 et seq.Google Scholar; for Germany, Bundesgerichtshof, BGHZ 53, 181 at p. 183 = 23 NJW (1970) 998Google Scholar; Bundesgerichtshof, 33 WM (1979) 692 at p. 693Google Scholar; Bundesgerichtshof, 37 NJW (1984) 2762 = 5 IPRax (1985) 221 at p. 223Google Scholar; Bundesgerichtshof, BGHZ 97, 269 at p. 271 = 39 NJW (1986) 2194 at p. 2195 = IPRspr. (1986) Nr. 19Google Scholar; Assmann, in: Gemeinschaftskommentar zum Aktiengesetz 4th ed. (1992), Introduction n. 540-545, 550, 552Google Scholar; Großfeld, supra n. 4, no. 72 et seq.; Heldrich, in: Palandt –Kommentar zum Biirgerlichen Gesetzbuch 59th ed. (2000), Appendix to Art. 12 EGBGB no. 2.Google Scholar

7 Art. 25 (1) of the Italian Act on Private International Law 1997; also Kindler, , “Internationale Zuständigkeit und anwendbares Recht im italienischen IPR-Gesetz von 1995”, 61 RabelsZ (1997) 227 at pp. 281 et seq.Google Scholar; Kronke in: Behrens, supra n. 5, n. I 52; similarly for the German law already Wiedemann, supra n. 2, § 14 II 1 a, cc(pp. 785 et seq.).

8 Grasmann, , System des internationalen Gesellschaftsrecht (1970).Google Scholar

9 Sandrock, , “Ein amerikanisches Lehrstück für das Kollisionsrecht der Kapitaigesellschaften”, 42 RabelsZ (1978) 227 at pp. 246 et seqGoogle Scholar. and most recently, id., “Centros: ein Etappenstieg für die Überlagerungstheorie”, 54 BB (1999) 1337.Google Scholar

10 Zimmer, , Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht (1996), pp. 232 et seq., pp. 325 et seq.Google Scholar

11 Cf. Art. 3 (1) of the Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations of 19 June 1980.

12 Großfeld, supra n. 4, n. 440; Kindler, supra n. 4, n. 352; W.-H., Roth, “Die Sitzverlegung vor dem EuGH”, 21 ZIP (2000) 1597, at p. 1600.Google Scholar

13 Oberlandesgericht Hamburg, , 39 WW (1986) 2199Google Scholar; Kammergericht, 42 NJW (1989) 496Google Scholar; Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg, , 43 WW (1990) 1422Google Scholar = 36 RIW (1990) 1019Google Scholar = 81 GmbHR (1990) 346Google Scholar; Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, , 41 RIW (1995) 508Google Scholar; in the literature cf. Großfeld, supra n. 4, n. 443; Kindler, supra n. 4, n. 354.

14 Bundesgerichtshof, BGHZ 53, 181.Google Scholar

15 Cf. Knobbe-Keuk, , “Umzug von Gesellschaften in Europa”, 154 ZHR (1990) 325 at p. 328Google Scholar; Eidenmüller, and Rehm, , “Gesellschafts- und zivilrechtliche Folgeprobleme der Sitztheorie”, 26 ZGR (1997) 89 at pp. 105 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Großfeld, supra n. 4, n. 439.

17 Bundesgerichtshof, BGHZ 97, 269 at p. 272Google Scholar = 39 NJW (1986) 2194 at p. 2195Google Scholar = IPRspr. (1986) Nr. 19; Oberlandesgericht Hamburg, , 34 RIW (1988) 816Google Scholar; Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt a.M., 43 DB (1990) 1224 = 11 IPRax (1991) 403 at p. 404Google Scholar; also Großfeld, supra n. 4, n. 228; Kindler, supra n. 4, n. 316.

18 Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt a. M, 6 IPRax (1986) 373 at p. 374Google Scholar; critical comments by Ahrens, , 6 IPRax (1986) 355 at p. 357.Google Scholar

19 Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt a. M., 43 DB (1990) 1224 at p. 1225 = 11 IPRax (1991) 403 at pp. 404 et seq.Google Scholar

20 Bayerisches, Oberstes Landgericht, 6 IPRax (1986) 161 at p. 164 = IPRspr. (1985)Nr. 214.Google Scholar

21 Oberlandesgericht München, , 39 DB (1986) 1767 at p. 1768 = 39 NJW (1986) 2197.Google Scholar

22 Oberlandesgericht Hamburg, , 34 RIW (1988) 816.Google Scholar

23 Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt a.M., 20 ZIP (1999) 1710 = 46 RIW (2000) 56Google Scholar (with an annotation by Haack approving of the findings of the court) and in EWiR § 50 ZPO 2/99 (with a critical annotation by Kindler). The decision is not yet legally valid as a revision is pending with the Bundesgerichtshof, file III ZR 230/99.

24 Cf. regarding this aspect König, , “Doppelsitz einer Kapitalgesellschaft – Gesetzliches Verbot oder zulässiges Mittel der Gestaltung einer Fusion?”, 45 AG (2000) 18.Google Scholar

25 Cf. the joint report of the boards of Daimler/Benz AG and Daimler/Chrysler AG on items nos. 1 and 2 on the agenda of the extraordinary general meeting of the shareholders of the Daimler/Benz AG on 18 September 1998, p. 39; Zimmer, , “Von Debraco bis DaimlerChrysler: Alte und neue Schwierigkeiten der internationalgesellschaftsrechtlichen Sitzbestimmung”, in: Corporations, Capital Markets and Business in the Law, Liber Amicorum Richard M. Buxbaum (London: Kluwer Law International 2000) 655.Google Scholar

26 Cf. regarding this aspect Noack, , “Moderne Kommunikationsformen vor den Toren des Unternehmensrechts”, 27 ZGR (1998) 592 at pp. 595 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Bundesgericht, official collection, vol. 76 I,159 consideration 3; vol. 105 II, 125 consideration 2; cf. also vol. 105 III, 111 consideration 2 and vol. 102 I a, 410. In the opinion of the Bundesgericht the new Act on Private International Law does not leave any room for the ‘siège fictif’ -theory, cf. official collection vol. 117 II 494.

28 Oberlandesgericht München, , IPRspr. (1986) Nr. 171 = 39 NJW (1986) 2197Google Scholar; Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg, , IPRspr. (1989) Nr. 26 = 43 NJW (1990) 1422Google Scholar; cf. also Oberlandesgericht Hamm, , IPRspr. (1994) Nr. 196 = 48 DB (1995) 137 at p. 139.Google Scholar

29 Cf. Mayer, , Droit international privé, 6th ed. (1998), p. 647 with references.Google Scholar

30 On the seat theory's concept of liabilities cf. supra section 2.

31 Originally only the Dutch ratification was missing. The Member States who have joined the EC subsequently have not ratified the convention either.

32 Cf. Grothe, , Die ‘ausländische Kapitalgesellschaft & Co.’ (1989) pp. 154 et seq.Google Scholar; Ebenroth, and Eyles, , “Die innereuropäische Verlegung des Gesellschaftssitzes als Ausfluß der Niederlassungsfreiheit?”, 42 DB (1989) 413 at p. 417Google Scholar; also Sandrock, and Austmann, , “Das internationale Gesellschaftsrecht nach der Daily Mail Entscheidung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs: Quo vadis?”, 35 RIW (1989) 249 at p. 252.Google Scholar

33 Cf. Schon, , “The Shareholder in European Company Law”, in German: 64 RabelsZ (2000) 1 at pp. 11 et seq.Google Scholar, in English: 1 EBOR (2000) 3 at pp. 13 et seq.Google Scholar

34 Cf. Grothe, supra n. 32, p. 308.

35 ECJ, decision of 27 September 1988, OJ [1988] 483 = 42 NJW (1989) 2186.

36 Ruling of the ECJ in its decision of 9 March 1999, OJ [1999] I-1459; 52 NJW (1999) 2027Google Scholar (with an article by Kindler on p. 1993); cf. case-note by Roth, , 37 CMLR (2000) pp. 147 et seqGoogle Scholar. and Zimmer, , “Mysterium ‘Centros’”, 164 ZHR (2000) 23.Google Scholar

37 The former opinion is held, e.g., by Roth and Kindler; the latter is held, e.g., by Zimmer (all supra n. 36).

38 In the latter sense Behrens, , “International Company Law in View of the Centros Decision of the ECJ”, in German: 19 IPRax (1999) 323Google Scholar, in English: 1 EBOR (2000) 125Google Scholar; in the former sense Zimmer, supra n. 36.

39 About this issue see Kieninger, , “Niederlassungsfreiheit als Rechtswahlfreiheit”, 28 ZGR (1999) 724 at pp. 731 et seq.Google Scholar; Steindorff, , “Centros und das Recht auf die gunstigste Rechtsordnung”, 54 JZ (1999) 1140 at p. 1142.Google Scholar

40 About this issue cf. Kindler, , “Das Centros-Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofes”, 2 Gesellschaftsrecht in der Discussion (1999) 87Google Scholar, and Zimmer, , “Mysterium ‘Centros’”, 164 ZHR (2000) 23 at pp. 39 et seq.Google Scholar

41 Generally Lutter, , “Das Europäische Unternehmensrecht im 21. Jahrhundert”, 29 ZGR (2000) 1 at pp. 9 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Cf. for an analysis Behrens in: Dauses, (ed.), Handbuch des EU-Wirtschaftsrechts, sub E III; Schön, supra n. 33, RabelsZ (2000) pp. 14 et seq.; EBOR (2000) pp. 16 et seq.Google Scholar

43 Cf. Preliminary Draft for a Fourteenth Directive, published in, e.g., 28 ZGR (1999) pp. 157 et seq.Google Scholar

44 Cf. Zimmer, supra n. 10, regarding the option of company investigations under English law.

45 OJ [1985] L 199/1.

46 Cf. De, Kluiver and Van, Gerven (eds.), The European Private Company (1995)Google Scholar; Helms, , Die europaische Privatgesellschaft (1998)Google Scholar; Hommelhoff, , “Die ‘Société ferinée éuropéenne – eine supranationale Gesellschaftsform für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen im Europäischen Binnenmarkt”, 51 WM (1997) 2101.Google Scholar

47 Cf. for a comparative survey Zimmer, supra n. 10, pp. 85 et seq.

48 Cf. Weinberg, and Blank, , On Take-Overs and Mergers (1989), n. 3-505 et seq.Google Scholar

49 Cf. the amended proposal for a Thirteenth Council Directive on company law concerning takeover and other general bids.

50 Art. 22 of the Federal Law of 24 March 1995 on Stock Exchange and Securities Trading.

51 Cf. for a comparative survey Zimmer, supra n. 10, p. 134 at pp. 137 et seq.

52 Vischer, Art. 159 n. 4-7, in: Heini, et al. , (eds.), IPRG-Kommentar (1993)Google Scholar with references also to a different view.

53 Cf., e.g., Behrens, , “Der Durchgriff über die Grenze”, 46 RabelsZ (1992) 308 at p. 345Google Scholar; for a survey on the opinions in this field see also Zimmer, supra n. 10, pp. 344 et seq.