Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T02:22:10.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Liability of the Managing Director and the Shareholder in the GmbH (Private Limited Company) in Crisis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Matthias Casper

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The insolvency of a company does not arrive suddenly. Normally, insolvency precedes a crisis. At present, the term “crisis” is defined in § 32 a sec. 1 of the Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit Beschränkter Haftung (GmbHG – Private Limited Companies Act) as the point when the company does not receive any credits according to the usual conditions in the particular market and when the shareholders provide the company with further shareholder capital instead of debt capital. Besides the rules governing shareholder capital substitution, which will be omitted due to the upcoming reform of private limited companies, there are few legal guidelines that regulate the standards of conduct for managing directors and shareholders in the case of a crisis. In particular, § 49 sec. 3 GmbHG needs to be singled out. This paragraph establishes an obligation to call a shareholder meeting if more than half of the capital stock is lost. If an adverse balance arises because of the payouts to the shareholders, the protections of §§ 30, 31 GmbHG will intervene. An adverse balance results when there is insufficient capital to cover the liabilities, ownership's equity, and guaranteed capital. However these protections often do not suffice.

Type
Research Article
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 9 , Issue 9: Special issue - Reform of Germany's Private Limited Company (GmbH) , 01 September 2008 , pp. 1125 - 1140
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Regierungsentwurf des Gesetzes zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Missbräuchen (in the following RegE MoMiG – Government Draft of an Act to Modernise the Law Governing Private Limited Companies and to Combat Abuses), Drucksachen des Bundestages (BTDrucks.), 16/6140 = Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (ZIP) 2007, supplement with No. 23. Concerning the omission of the law on shareholder capital substitution in favor of a subordination in the Insolvenzordnung (InsO-Bankruptcy Act); See Hölzle, Gerrit, Deutsches Steuerrecht (DStR) 1484, 1490 (2007); See Schäfer, DStR 2085, 2086 (2006); See Winter, Martin, DStR 1484, 1490 (2007).Google Scholar

2 In the new regulation it says: “Die gleiche Verpflichtung trifft die Geschäftsführer für Zahlungen an die Gesellschafter, soweit diese zur Zahlungsunfähigkeit der Gesellschaft führen mussten, es sei denn, dies war auch bei Beachtung der in Satz 2 bezeichneten Sorgfalt nicht erkennbar.” The same obligation concerns the managing directors for payments to the shareholders as far as these payments had to lead to the insolvency of the company unless this was also not perceptible in the case of exercising the in sent. 2 identified care.Google Scholar

3 Equally Sven Greulich and Jan Bunnemann, Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht (NZG) 681, 684 (2006); Schmidt, Karsten, GmbH Rundschau (GmbHR) 1072, 1079 (2007).Google Scholar

4 See Philip Böcker and Christoph Poertzgen, Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Bankrecht (WM) 1203, 1205 (2007); Knof, Béla, DStR 1072, 1079 (2007).Google Scholar

5 See Casper, Matthias in Steuerungsfunktionen des Haftungsrechts im Gesellschafts- und Kapitalmarktrecht 33, 41 (Gregor Bachmann, Matthias Casper, Carsten Schäfer, and Rüdiger Veil eds., 2007); Dagmar Gesmann-Nuissl, WM 1756, 1763 (2006).Google Scholar

6 RegE MoMiG, BTDrucks No. 16/6140, page 111; Casper, , supra note 5, at 41; Gesmann-Nuissl, supra note 5, at 1763; Böcker and Poertzgen, supra note 4, at 1205; Greulich and Bunnemann, supra note 3, at 682.Google Scholar

7 RegE MoMiG, BTDrucks No. 16/6140, page 112.Google Scholar

8 Also, the shareholder may not be covered if the obligation of an insolvency petition has been devolved to him according to § 15 a sec. 3 n.F. InsO in the case of the limited company without management; but see Gerrit Hölzle, GmbHR 729, 731 (2007).Google Scholar

9 This implicates RegE MoMiG BTDrucks 16/6140, page 112; see also Böcker, supra at, 1205; Seibert, ZIP 1157, 1167 (2006); Ulrich Noack, Der Betrieb (DB) 1475, 1479 (2006); Greulich, supra note 3, at 683; Karsten Schmidt, supra note 3, at 1079; Knof, DStR 1536, 1537 (2007); Gerrit Hölzle, GmbHR 729, 730 (2007).Google Scholar

10 More specifically, to the concept of the solvency test, see e.g. Engert, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht (ZHR) 170, 296, 318 (2007); Peter O. Mülbert, Der Konzern 151, 160 (2004); Rüdiger Veil in Das Kapital der Aktiengesellschaft in Europa, 91, 96 (Marcus Lutter ed., 2006); Carsten Jungmann, Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht (ZGR) 638, 647 (2006); see also Béla Knof, DStR 1536, 1541 (2007).Google Scholar

11 Insofar it can be referred to the previous literature concerning § 64 sec. 2 GmbHG, See Joachim Schulze-Osterloh in GmbH-Gesetz, § 64 margin number 79 (Adolf Baumbach and Götz Hueck eds., 18th ed., 2006) (majority opinion); but see Karsten Schmidt in Kommentar zum GmbH-Gesetz, § 64 margin number 23 (Franz Scholz ed., Vol. 2, 9th ed., 2002).Google Scholar

12 Every shareholder is a possible payee, a privilege of small shareholding like up to now known from § 32a sec. 3 sent. 2 GmbHG does not exist, see Matthias Casper in GROßKOMMENTAR zum GmbH-Gesetz 106 (Peter Ulmer, Mathias Habersack, and Martin Winter eds., Vol. 3, 2008), § 64 margin number 106.Google Scholar

13 See Greulich and Bunnemann, supra note 3, at 684 et seq; different view Casper, supra note 12, at 107; Knof, supra note 9, at 1538.Google Scholar

14 See Greulich and Bunnemann, supra note 3, at 685; Knof, supra note 9, at 1539; see also Böcker and Poertzgen, supra note 4, at 1207.Google Scholar

15 RegE MoMiG BTDrucks 16/6140, page 112.Google Scholar

16 In this sense however RegE MoMiG BTDrucks 16/6140, page 112.Google Scholar

17 Similarly Knof, supra note 9, at 1539.Google Scholar

18 RegE MoMiG BTDrucks 16/6140, page 112; See Greulich and Bunnemann, supra note 3, at 685.Google Scholar

19 See Greulich and Bunnemann, supra note 3, at 685.Google Scholar

20 See Knof, , supra note 9, at 1536, 1541, and 1580.Google Scholar

21 See Knof, , supra note 9, at 1580, 1585 (justifiably points at the fact that, in the case of unavailable forecast data, the managing director also falls victim to the onus of proof whereby according to the here argued opinion it is a matter of the question concerning the subjective facts of a case); on its merits see also Schmidt, A., Zeitschrift für das gesamte Insolvenzrecht (ZInsO) 975, 978 (2007).Google Scholar

22 Insofar appropriate Böcker and Poertzgen, supra note 4, at 1208.Google Scholar

23 Id. at 1208.Google Scholar

24 BGHZ 144, 226 (340) = BGH Neue juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2577 (2000); BGH ZIP 1256, 1257 (2000); BGH NJW 3629 (2002); BGH ZIP 2203, 2204 (2005).Google Scholar

25 Equally Böcker and Poertzgen, supra note 4, at 1208; Hölzle, supra note 9, at 732.Google Scholar

26 For more Details see Knof, , supra note 9, at 1580, 1584.Google Scholar

27 Further Knof, , supra note 9, at 1580, 1582 (the ongoing and the following business year, which is to say, up to two years).Google Scholar

28 See Greulich and Bunnemann, supra note 3, at 686; Knof, supra note 9 at 1580 and 1582.Google Scholar

29 Compare thereto also Greulich and Bunnemann, supra note 3, at 686; Knof, , supra note 9, at 1580.Google Scholar

30 IDW examination standards (Prüfungsstandard - PS): Empfehlungen zur Prüfung eingetretener oder drohender Zahlungsunfähigkeit bei Unternehmen – IDW PS 800 of 22 January 1999, Die Wirtschaftsprüfung (WPg) 250 (1999); see also A. Schmidt, supra note 21, at 978; Engert, , supra note 10, at 296, 325, and 327.Google Scholar

31 RegE MoMiG BTDrucks 16/6140, page 113; Böcker and Poertzgen, supra note 4, at 1203 and 1207; Hölzle, supra note 9, at 732.Google Scholar

32 Röhricht, Volker, Die GmbH im Spannungsfeld zwischen wirtschaftlicher Dispositionsfreiheit ihrer Gesellschafter und Gläubigerschutz, in Festschrift 50 Jahre BGH, 83 (K. Geiß, K. Nehm, H.E. Brandner and H. Hagen eds., 2000).Google Scholar

33 See BGHZ 149, 10 =NJW 3622 (2001).Google Scholar

34 See BGHZ 151, 181 = NJW 3024 (2002).Google Scholar

35 See BGHZ 173, 246 = ZIP 1552 ff. (2007).Google Scholar

36 See BGHZ 151, 181 =NJW 3024 (2002); see also Oberlandesgericht (OLG – Regional Appeal Court) Jena, GmbHR 115 (2002).Google Scholar

37 See Martin Winter, ZGR 570, 591 (1994); Georg Bitter, WM 2133, 2137 (2001); Tim Drygala, GmbHR 729, 730 (2003); Gehrlein, NJW 1089, 1090 (2000); Haas, WM 1929, 1932 (2003); Jan Lieder, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Insolvenzrecht (DZWIR) 309 (2005); Thomas Liebscher, GmbH-Konzernrecht 499 (2006); Raiser, in Festschrift für Peter Ulmer, 493, 504 (Mathias Habersack, Peter Hommelhoff, Uwe Huffer and Karsten Schmidt eds., 2003); Vetter, ZIP 601, 602 (2003); Marc-Philippe Weller, Europäische Rechtsformwahlfreiheit und Gesellschafterhaftung, 140 (2004); V. Röhricht, supra note 32, at 103.Google Scholar

38 See BGHZ 95, 330 (332) = NJW 188 (1986).Google Scholar

39 Thereto fundamentally Georg Bitter, Die konzernrechtliche Durchgriffshaftung bei Personengesellschaften, 432 (2000). See also Liebscher, , supra note 37, at 500; Raiser in Großkommentar zum GmbH-Gesetz, § 13 margin number 152 (Peter Ulmer, Mathias Habersack, and Martin Winter eds., Vol. 3, 2008); Emmerich, in Scholz, supra note 11, § 13 margin number 96; see e.g. Weller, , supra note 37, at 176 and 184; Lieder, supra note 37, at 309.Google Scholar

40 See Vetter, ZIP 601, 603 et seq (2003); Haas, WM 1929, 1940 (2003); Burgard, ZIP 827, 830 (2002).Google Scholar

41 Fundamentally now Wagner, , in Festschrift für Claus-Wilhelm Canaris 473, 489 (Andreas Held Rich, Juergen Prölss, Ingo Koller, and Katja Langenbucher eds., 2007); Zöllner, Festschrift für Horst Konzen, 999, 1013 (2006); before allready Emmerich and Habersack, Aktien- und GmbH-KonzernR (4th ed.) Anhang zu § 318 margin numerber 35; Veil, Rüdiger, Gesellschaftsrecht in der Diskussion, 10 Gesellschaftsrechtliche Vereinigung (VGR) 103, 113 (2005); Haas, Ulrich, Gutachten zum 66. Deutscher Juristentag (DJT) E. 83 (2006); Barbara Dauner-Lieb, DStR 2034, 2041 (2006); see now also Weller, DStR 1166, 1168 (2007).Google Scholar

42 See Altmeppen, Holger, ZIP 1837, 1847 (2001); the same NJW 321, 323 (2002); the same ZIP 961, 966 (2002); the same ZIP 1553, 152 (2002); see also Wilhelm, NJW 175, 178 (2003); see also Schön, ZHR 168, 268, 289(2004) (tendency for the group of cases of the “Spekulation auf Kosten der Gläubiger” (speculation at the cost of the creditors)); Wilhelm, Juristische Person 285 and 335 (1981); Flume, BGB AT I/2 88 (1983). In contrast particularly see Ulmer, ZIP 2021, 2025 et seq (2001).Google Scholar

43 Compare to the aside from footnotes 45–47; see also Ihrig, Hans-Christoph, DStR 1170 (2007) (who, however, leaves the exact basis of an internal liability finally open).Google Scholar

44 See Ulmer, ZIP 2021, 2026 (2001); Martin Winter, Mitgliedschaftliche Treubindungen im GmbH-Recht 190 and 202 (1988); ZGR 570, 580 (1994)(the same); but see Hans Christoph Grigoleit, Gesellschafterhaftung für interne Einflussnahme im Recht der GmbH 321 (2006) (same basic approach but speaks of an obligation for a dezentrale Gewinnverteilung (peripheral distribution of profits) deriving from a fiduciary duty); For an other view see Günther Hönn, WM 769, 771 (2008).Google Scholar

45 Schmidt, Karsten, NJW 3577, 3579 (2001).Google Scholar

46 See Zöllner, Wolfgang, Gläubigerschutz durch Gesellschafterhaftung bei der GmbH, in Festschrift für Horst Konzen 999, 1018 (Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Peter Hommelhoff, Mathias Jacobs, Dagmar Kaiser, and Christoph Weber eds., 2006).Google Scholar

47 See note 35; once again confirmed by BGH ZIP 455, 456 (2008); BGH ZIP 1232, 1233 (2008); BGH WM 302, 303 et seq (2008); BGH WM 1402, 1403 (2008); BGH WM 761 (2008).Google Scholar

48 BGHZ 150, 61 (67) = NJW 1803 (2002).Google Scholar

49 Critical concerning this terminology, particularly Zöllner, supra note 46, at 1003.Google Scholar

50 Insofar different view however Wagner, supra note 41, at 488.Google Scholar

51 Equally besides the exponents of a direct liability of controlling shareholder, e.g. Grigoleit, , supra note 45, at 455; Ulmer, ZIP 2021, 2027 (2001); Schwab, ZIP 341, 347 (2008); different view however BGHZ 173, 246 = ZIP 1552, 1557 (2007).Google Scholar

52 For further Details Compare Casper, supra note 12, Anhang § 77 margin number 124.Google Scholar

53 BGHZ 29, 100 = NJW 623 (1959).Google Scholar

54 See for example BGHZ 75, 96 (106) = NJW 1823 (1979); BGHZ 100, 19 (21) =NJW 2433 (1987); BGHZ 126, 181 (190) = NJW 2220 (1994); BGHZ 138, 211 (214) = NJW 2667 (1998); BGHZ 171, 46 (49, 51) = GmbHR 482 (2007); BGH GmbHR 599, 600 (2007); see also Reichsgericht Juristische Wochenschrift (JW) 3301 (1935); FROM LITERATURE INSTEAD OF MANY see Lutter/Hommelhoff/Kleindiek GmbH-Gesetz, 16th ed, § 64 margin number 41; Rowedder/Schmidt-Leithoff GmbH-Gesetz, 4th ed., § 64 margin number 38; Scholz/Karsten Schmidt, supra note 11, at 37; Baumbach/Hueck/Schulze-Osterloh, supra note 11, at 90; and more in detail Joachim Schulze-Osterloh, in Festschrift für Marcus Lutter 707, 708 (Uwe H. Schneider, Peter Hommelhoff, Karsten Schmidt, Wolfram Timm, Barbara Grunewald, Tim Drygala eds., 2000); Christoph Poertzgen, Organhaftung wegen Insolvenzverschleppung 254 (2006).Google Scholar

55 Concerning the controversial question if all new creditors may be included in the scope of application of § 64 GmbHG and if the trustee in bankruptcy is allowed to also collect their quota deterioration damage, see e.g. Casper, supra note 12, at 121.Google Scholar

56 See RegE MoMiG BTDrucks 16/6140, p. 133 f.; however the Bundesrat (Upper House of the German Federal Parliament) points in his comment at the fact that insofar nothing may be changed about the applicable legal situation.Google Scholar

57 See Karsten Schmidt, GmbHR 1072, 1078 (2007); Kallmeyer, DB 2755, 2759 (2007); Christoph Poertzgen, GmbHR 1258 (2007); the same ZInsO 574, 575 (2007); Béla Knof and Sebastian Mock, GmbHR 852, 854 (2007).Google Scholar

58 See Casper, supra note 12, at 36 and 145 (concerning the scope of application and the concept of the de facto managing director).Google Scholar

59 For more Details see Casper, , supra note 12, at 168 et seqq; in depth details concerning the combat of the company without management by the MoMiG see Steffek, Felix, Betriebs-Berater (BB) 2077 (2007).Google Scholar

60 In contrast to this, according to the government bill, the knowledge of one circumstance already did harm, consequently one was not allowed to have knowledge of both circumstances for not being obligated, see Casper, , supra note 5, at 43.Google Scholar

61 See Casper, , supra note 12, at 33 et seq (more detailed reasons with further verifications also concerning the opposing view).Google Scholar

62 BGHZ 173, 246 = ZIP 1552, 1556 (2007).Google Scholar

63 See Hönn, Günther, WM 769, 778 (2008) (equal result).Google Scholar

64 See Casper, , supra note 12, Anhang § 77 margin number 134 et seqq (further details).Google Scholar