Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:12:13.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Management Buy-Out, Cash Pooling, Up-Stream Loans and Guarantees in German Group Companies: Old Concepts – New Developments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Jochen Herbst

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.

For more than a century, the cardinal provision ensuring the preservation of the capital reserve in the registered share capital amount in a Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH – German company with limited liability) has continued unaltered. This is the payout prohibition contained in § 30 (1) Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbHG – German Act on Companies with Limited Liability), which the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH – German Federal Court of Justice) has identified as a “cornerstone of the GmbHG.“ In consideration of the impressive period of applicability and evident resistance of the provision against legislative encroachments, the lay person, for example a managing director of a GmbH as primary addressee of the provision, is now supposed to be able to assume that at least the fundamental legal issues concerning the provision have been sufficiently clarified through jurisprudence and legal practice in the meantime.

Type
Private Law
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 10 , 01 October 2004 , pp. 1217 - 1232
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See BGHZ 28, 77 (78).Google Scholar

2 See BGH Wertpapier-Mitteilungen (WM) 325 (2004) = Betriebs-Berater (BB) 293 (2004) = Der Konzern 196 (2004) = Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht (NZG) 233 (2004) = GmbH Rundschau 302 (2004) = Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (ZIP) 263 (2004) = Der Betrieb 371 (2004).Google Scholar

3 See BGHZ 81, 311 = NJW 1982, 383.Google Scholar

6 § 30 (1) GmbHG provides: „The assets of the company required to preserve the registered share capital may not be distributed to the shareholders:“Google Scholar

7 § 43a, sentence 1 GmbHG provides: „The assets of the company required to preserve the registered share capital may not be used to grant loans to managing directors, other legal representatives, Prokuristen (holders of general signing powers) and authorized signatories with powers extending to the whole business“Google Scholar

8 See Amendment Act dated 04 July 1980; BGBl. I 1980 at 836.Google Scholar

9 For the text of § 43a GmbHG, see supra at note 5.Google Scholar

10 See RegE BT-Drs. 8/1347 at 74.Google Scholar

11 See Karsten Schmidt, Gesellschaftsrecht, 4TH ed.1149 (2002); Uwe H. Schneider in Scholz (ed.) Kommentar zum GmbH-Gesetz 9TH ed. § 43a at note 61 (2000); Sotiropoulos, Kredite und Kreditsicherheiten der GmbH zugunsten ihrer Gesellschafter und nahestehender Dritter (1996) at pp. 45 et seq.Google Scholar

12 See Goerdeler/Müller in Hachenburg (ed.) Kommentar zum GmbHG vol. I (§§ 1-34), 8th ed. § 30 at note 56 (1992); Heidinger in Michalski (ed.) Kommentar zum GmbHG vol. I (2002) § 30 at note 13 in connection with note 30; Roth in Roth /Altmeppen (eds.) GmbHG-Kommentar 4th ed. § 30 at note 6 (2003); each author provides further references.Google Scholar

13 See Wiedemann, Gesellschaftsrecht vol. I, at 557 (1980),.Google Scholar

14 Pursuant to § 42 GmbHG in connection with §§ 242 et seq. Handelsgesetzbuch (HGB – German Commercial Code).Google Scholar

15 See Stimpel Zum Auszahlungsverbot des § 30 Abs. 1 GmbHG Festschrift 100 Jahre GmbH-Gesetz 335-61 at 36 (1992). See also, Schön Kreditbesicherung durch abhängige Kapitalgesellschaften 159 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht (ZHR) 351-74 at 59(1995).Google Scholar

16 See the authors references in note 12 supra. See also Fastrich in Baumbach/Hueck (eds.) GmbHG-Kommentar 17th ed. § 30 at note 16 (2000); Lutter/Hommelhoff GmbHG-Kommentar 15th ed. § 30 at note 13 and note 26 (2000); Klaus J. Müller Darlehensgewährung der GmbH an ihren Gesellschafter 1804-07 at 05 (Betriebs-Berater (BB) 1998); Pentz in Rowedder/Schmidt-Leithoff (eds.) Kommentar zum GmbHG 4th ed. § 30 at note 30 (2002).Google Scholar

17 See RG HRR 1935, no. 1403. See also RGZ 150, 28, 34 et seq.Google Scholar

18 See II 2. a) of the judgment. On the legislative history of § 43a GmbH Act, see above II. 1.Google Scholar

19 See II. 2. b) and c) of the judgment.Google Scholar

20 See II. 2. c) of the judgment.Google Scholar

21 See note 15 above.Google Scholar

22 According to § 249 (1) Handelsgesetzbuch (HGB – German Commercial Code).Google Scholar

23 This basic approach of real asset reduction as applied by the BGH is critizised, in particular, by Cahn (note 4) at pp. 238–243.Google Scholar

24 See II. c) bb) of the judgment.Google Scholar

25 See II. c) bb) of the judgment.Google Scholar

26 See II. c) cc) of the judgment.Google Scholar

27 Pursuant to § 31 GmbHG. See BGH BGHZ 144, 336 at 341.Google Scholar

28 See II. c) dd) of the judgment.Google Scholar

29 Pursuant to § 302 and § 303 Aktiengesetz (as applied analogously).Google Scholar

30 For details on the Bremer Vulkan judgment by the BGH, see e.g. 3 German Law Journal No. 1 (01 January 2002), directly available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=124.Google Scholar

31 See D. I. above.Google Scholar

32 See Cahn Kapitalaufbringung im Cash Pool 166 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht (ZHR) 278-306 at 279 (2002); Reidenbach (supra at note 4) at 1423; Schilmar (supra at note 4) at 1413; Vetter (supra at note 4) at 1509, each with further references.Google Scholar

33 See Langner/Mentgen (supra at note 4) at 1122-1124; Reidenbach (note 4) at 1423-1425.Google Scholar

34 See Reidenbach (supra at note 4) at 1426-1428; Wessels (supra at note 4) at 796-797.Google Scholar

35 On § 291 (3) Aktiengesetz, see I. above.Google Scholar

36 This problem is highlighted by Cahn (supra at note 4) at 244.Google Scholar

37 In particular, see §§ 10, 11 KWG (including the respective regulations thereunder) on liquidity and solvency requirements for German banks. For details, see Gruson in Gruson/Reisner (eds.) Regulation of Foreign Banks Vol. 2, 3rd ed. 368-98 (2000). But see also Cahn (supra at note 4) at 244. In this context, Cahn discusses § 15 (1), sentence 1, no. 10 KWG; according to this provision, the granting of loans to companies holding more than 10 per cent of the stated capital of the bank needs to be approved by both the bank's management and supervisory board.Google Scholar

38 Previously, this happened e.g. in the Bremer Vulkan judgment (see supra at note 30); in this judgment, the legal viewpoint as earlier expressed in an article by Judge Röhricht, acting president of the competent court chamber, was later applied by the court, published in the Festschrift for the 50th Anniversary of the Bundesgerichtshof.Google Scholar

39 See European Court of Justice, Case C-167/01, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v. Inspire Art Ltd., 2003 ECR I. In addition, see Baelz/Baldwin The End of the Real Seat Theory (Sitztheorie): the European Court of Justice Decision in Ueberseering of 5 November 2002 and its Impact on German and European Company Law 3 German Law Journal (2001) no. 12 (http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=214); Helmreich (supra at note 4) at 457-58.; and the contributions in Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht (ZGR) no. 4 (2004).Google Scholar