1 See Udo Kornblum, GMBH-Rundschau, 99 GmbHR 19 (2008) (estimating a little less than a million companies in 2007).Google Scholar

2 Klaus J. Mueller, The GmbH - A Guide to the German Limited Liability Company 32 (2006). This is in stark contrast to the law of corporations, which was not only fundamentally revised in 1937 and 1965, but has also been undergoing a “permanent reform” (Wolfgang Zöllner, Aktienrechtsreform in Permanenz - Was wird aus den Rechten des Aktionärs?, 330 (1994)) since 1994 (“Gesetz für kleine Aktiengesellschaften und zur Deregulierung des Aktiensrechts”), 1998 (“Gesetz zur Kontrolle und Transparenz im Unternehmensbereich”), 2001 (“Gesetz zur Namensaktie und zur Erleichterung der Stimmrechtsausübung”); 2002 (“Gesetz zur weiteren Reform des Aktien- und Bilanzrechts, zu Transparenz und Publizität im Unternehmen”); 2005 (“Gesetz zur Unternehmensintegrität und Modernisierung des Anfechtungsrechts”).Google Scholar

3 The number of treatises, journals, and the steady stream of new decisions aptly illustrate this point.Google Scholar

4 Gesetz zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Missbräuchen (MoMiG – Law for the modernization of Limited Liability Companies Act and for combating abuses), (BGBl. reference not yet available at time of editorial deadline); draft law reference: BRDrucks. 354/07; See also the Bericht des Rechtsausschusses (report of the Committee on Legal Affairs), BTDrucks 16/9737, available at the website of the German Federal Ministry of Justice, http://www.bmj.bund.de/media/archive/1236.pdf.Google Scholar

5 Rudolf B. Schlesinger et. al., Comparative Law 801 (5th ed. 1988).Google Scholar

6 Lenhardt, Ingrid Lynn, The Corporate And Tax Advantages Of A Limited Liability Company: A German Perspective, 64 U. Cin. L. Rev. 551 (1996); admittedly rules and ideas from one corporate form are often drawn upon to close gaps in the regulation of the other, e.g. regarding the voidability of decisions at shareholder meetings (skeptical Wolfgang Zöllner in Adolf Baumbach & Alfred Hueck, GmbH-Gesetz (18th ed. 2006) or groups of companies.Google Scholar

7 A general overview is provided by Klaus J. Müller, The GmbH - Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung - A Guide to the German Limited Liability Company (2006); Seibert, Ulrich, The Law Governing Capitalized Corporations in the Federal Republic of Germany (the AG and GmbH), in Basics of German Commercial and Economic Law (1994).Google Scholar

8 See Lutter, Marcus, Zur Entwicklung der GmbH in Europa und in der Welt, 96 GmbHR 1 (2005), and the essays in Marcus Lutter, 100 Jahre GmbH-Gesetz (1992); Schlesinger, , in Marcus Lutter, 100 Jahre GmbH-Gesetz 830 (1992); Burkhardt W. Meister & Martin H. Heidenhain, The German Limited Liability Company 24 (5th ed. 1988); Thiessen, Jan, Transfer von GmbH-Recht im 20. Jahrhundert - Export, Import, Binnenhandel in Vanessa Duss, et. al., Legal Transfer in History 446 (Martin Meidenbauer Verlagsbuchhandlung, ed. 2006); see also Handbuch des internationalen GmbH-Rechts (Rembert Suess & Thomas Wachter eds., 2006) (providing comparative documentation).Google Scholar

9 See Seibert, Ulrich, Die rechtsmissbräuchliche Verwendung der GmbH in der Krise - Stellungnahmen zu einer Umfrage des Bundesministeriums der Justiz, in Festschrift für Volker Röhricht 585–88 (Georg Crezelius et al. eds., Cologne, Schmidt 2005).Google Scholar

10 Triebel, Volker & Otte, Sabine, 20 Vorschläge für eine GmbH-Reform - Welche Lektion kann der deutsche Gesetzgeber vom englischen lernen? 27 ZIP 311 (2006).Google Scholar

11 C-167/01 Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam/Inspire Art, 2003 E.C.R. I-10155; see also C-208/00 Überseering BV v. Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement, 2002 E.C.R. I-9919; C-212/97 Centros Ltd. v. Erhvervs-og Selskabsstyrelsen, 1999 E.C.R. I-1459.Google Scholar

12 According to a parliamentary inquiry, 23,496 new GmbHs were formed in 2005, while only 3,195 subsidiaries of English Limited companies entered the public registers, BTDrucks 16/283.Google Scholar

13 Ironically, “simplification” was also one of the core goals of the UK Company Law Act 2006. UK Department of Trade and Industry, Companies Act 2006 – A summary of what it means for private companies (February 2007) available at http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file37956.pdf.Google Scholar

14 While Udo Kornblum, Bundesweite Rechtstatsachen zum Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht, Stand 01.01.2006, 98 GmbHR 25 (2007), estimates only 7.000 registered subsidiaries in Germany, one has to take into account a huge number of entrepreneurs who are unaware of, or simply ignore, their duties under the Eleventh Council Directive 89/666, 1989 O.J. (L 395), see Eidenmüller, Horst, Die GmbH im Wettbewerb der Rechtsformen, 36 ZGR 168, 170 (2007).Google Scholar

15 Specifically, in 2004 more than half of the GmbHs in crisis did not even have sufficient funds to initiate bankruptcy proceedings, Justus Meyer & Judith Hermes, GmbHR 807, 809 (2005).Google Scholar

16 The practice is aptly called “burying” the GmbH.Google Scholar

17 The Company Law of the People's Republic of China still requires a minimum capital for both the “GmbH” and the Corporation, although the amount is significantly less than in Germany (RMB 30,000/US$ 4,100 for a “GmbH,” and RMB 5 Million/US$ 697,412 for a stock corporation). Both sums were significantly reduced in 2006. Previously these minimum amounts were RMB 500,000 and RMB 10 Million respectively.Google Scholar

18 See the official Internet site at www.dti.gov.uk/bbf/co-act-2006/index.html; detailed description in Alistair Alcock, John Bird & Steve Gale, Companies Act 2006: The New Law (2007); see also critical comments (especially regarding the size of the reform, containing approximately 1, 300 sections and 16 schedules) by David Bennet, The Companies Act 2006 - A Megalosaurus in Holborn?, 83 Bus. L.B. 1 (2006); Sandy Shandro & Paul Sidle, Reforms To English Company Law, 26 Am. Bankr. Inst. J. 34 (2007); Andrew Harvey, The Director's Cut, 104 L.S.G. 31 (2007).Google Scholar

19 Gesetz zur Bekämpfung von Missbräuchen, zur Neuregelung der Kapitalaufbringung und zur Förderung der Transparenz im GmbH-Recht (Law to combat abuses, to re-structure raising of capital, and to strengthen transparency in the law of private limited liability companies), November 30, 2004.Google Scholar

20 See Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Missbräuchen (MoMiG) of 29 May 2006, available at http://www.bmj.bund.de/files/-/1236/RefE%20MoMiG.pdf.Google Scholar

21 See Regierungsentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Missbräuchen (MoMiG) of 23 May 2007, available at http://www.bmj.bund.de/files/-/2109/MoMiG-RegE%2023%2005%2007.pdf.Google Scholar

22 See Bundesrats-Drucksache Nr. 354/07, available at http://www.bmj.bund.de/files/1d854d9273a0aaff04db3f2a2caf9b61/2602/Stellungnahme%20Bundesrat%20MoMiG_Beschluss.pdf.Google Scholar

23 See Rechtsausschuss Stellungnahmen der Sachverstandigen available at http://www.bundestag.de/ausschuesse/a06/anhoerungen/28_MoMiG/04_Stellungnahmen/index.html.Google Scholar

24 See DYCKMANS: Mangelhafte Gesetzgebung be GmbH nicht hinnehmbar, available at http://www.fdp-fraktion.de/webcom/show_websiteprog.php/_c-649/_lkm-84/_nr-9763/bis-/i.html.Google Scholar

25 As evidenced in the decisions of the 2007 meeting of legal professionals (Deutscher Juristentag).Google Scholar

26 Unlike most LLC-statutes in the US, German Law does not distinguish between the bylaws and articles of organization. A single document discussing both the core elements and the details of internal structures (“Satzung”) is filed with the state and published according to the 1st Directive.Google Scholar

27 Required e.g. for handcraft, car repairs or operation of an inn, cf. Sect. 1 para. 1 Handwerksordnung (Trade Regulation); sec. 2 para. 1 Gaststättengesetz (Law on the regulation of inns and pubs).Google Scholar

28 In fact, a proposal shifting the burden of review upon the notaries was clearly declined at the 2007 meeting of legal professionals (Deutscher Juristentag).Google Scholar

29 Namely to avoid personal liability for the statutorily required contractual warranties.Google Scholar

30 See Ulrich Seibert, Close Corporations – Reforming Private Company Law: European and International Perspectives, 8 EBOR 83 (2007) (also emphasizing this point).Google Scholar

31 Sect. 8 para. 1 No. 6 GmbHG (Act on limited liability companies—GmbHG) is repealed.Google Scholar

32 Sect. 8 para. 2 GmbHG expressly states the limitation.Google Scholar

33 Gesetz über elektronische Handelsregister und Genossenschaftsregister sowie das Unternehmensregister (EHUG), BGBl. I 2006, 2553 (“Act on electronic registers of trade and co-operative societies and the company register”).Google Scholar

34 As all member states are required to provide such electronic registers under Directive 2003/58/EC of July 15, 2003 amending Council Directive 68/151/EEC of April 9, 2003, 2003 O.J. (L 221) 13 as regards disclosure requirements in respect of certain types of companies.Google Scholar

35 In accordance with First Council Directive on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required of companies (Directive 61/151/EEC) (as amended by directive 2003/58/EC), thus similar to the other European Union Member States.Google Scholar

36 See only www.go-limited.de, www.Limited24.de, www.limited4you.de.Google Scholar

37 www.go-limited.de/preise/preise-und-agb.html.Google Scholar

38 As required by the Eleventh Council Directive (EEC) No. 89/666 of December 21, 1989.Google Scholar

39 This was and is the core argument for the introduction of the new SLNE in Spain. See Fernando Juan-Mateu, The Private Company in Spain – Some Recent Developments, 1 ECFR 60–70 (2004).Google Scholar

40 The GmbHG speaks of “Gesellschafter,” which might be better translated as “member” or “partner,” as it is the same term used for partners in a German partnership.Google Scholar

41 Sect. 5 para. 1, 3 GmbHG.Google Scholar

42 Sect. 5 para. 2 GmbHG.Google Scholar

43 Sect. 17 GmbHG.Google Scholar

44 By eliminating the aforementioned rules regarding formation in sect. 5 GmbHG, and simplifying the procedure for splitting shares in sect. 17 GmbHG.Google Scholar

45 See e.g. Sect. 158 DGCL, sect. 185 CalCC, sect. 508 (c) (2) NYBCL.Google Scholar

46 Central search mechanism of the commercial registers administered by the German States (Länder): <www.handelsregister.de>; Central federal register, providing access to the commercial registers: <www.unternehmensregister.de>.;+Central+federal+register,+providing+access+to+the+commercial+registers:+.>Google Scholar

47 Sect. 7b JVKostO in connection with part 4 of the attached fee schedule.Google Scholar

48 Sect. 16 para. 1 GmbHG as amended by the reform bill.Google Scholar

49 See sect. 15 paras. 3 and 4 GmbHG.Google Scholar

50 See Sect. 15 para. 5 GmbHG.Google Scholar

51 Sect. 16 para. 3 GmbHG as amended by the reform bill; see in detail Altgen (in this issue).Google Scholar

52 Sect. 16 para. 3, 2^nd alternative GmbHG – evidently trying to copy the idea of the real estate registers (Grundbuch).Google Scholar

53 See Martin Schockenhoff & Andreas Höder, Gutgläubiger Erwerb von GmbH-Anteilen nach dem MoMiG: Nachbesserungsbedarf aus Sicht der M&A-Praxis, 27 ZIP 1841 (2006) (discussing a previous draft).Google Scholar

54 Sect. 23 para. 5 AktG prohibits deviations from the statute unless expressly allowed.Google Scholar

55 Such a board may be constituted voluntarily (Sect. 52 GmbHG), or may be required for co-determination of over 500 employees (see Drittelbeteiligungsgesetz, MitbestG, MontanMitbestG, MitbestErgG), or due to special investors’ needs (Sect. 5 para. 2 InvestmG).Google Scholar

56 In the AG, decisions by the shareholders meeting on management issues are expressly prohibited, Sect. 119 para. 2 AktG.Google Scholar

57 See s. 4a sect. 2 GmbHG, requiring the seat to be the place of actual operations.Google Scholar

58 See Ulrich Noack & Dirk Zetzsche, Germany's Corporate And Financial Law 2007: (Getting) Ready For Competition, available at http://papers.ssrn.com.Google Scholar

59 See ECJ, Case 81/87 The Queen v. H.M. Treasury and Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Daily Mail and General Trust plc., 1988 E.C.R. 5483 (“Articles 52 and 58 of the Treaty cannot be interpreted as conferring on companies incorporated under the law of a Member State a right to transfer their central management and control and their central administration to another Member State while retaining their status as companies incorporated under the legislation of the first Member State.”).Google Scholar

60 See Kilian Baelz & Teresa Baldwin, The End of the Real Seat Theory (Sitztheorie): the European Court of Justice Decision in Ueberseering of November 5, 2002 and its Impact on German and European Company Law, 3 German L. J. (2002).Google Scholar

61 Art. XXV No. 5 Sent. 2 of the Treaty Of Friendship, Commerce And Navigation Between The United States Of America And The Federal Republic Of Germany, U.S. - Germany, July 14, 1956, 7 U.S.T. 1839.Google Scholar

62 See Council Regulation 44/2001, Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Art., 2000 J.O. (1) 60.Google Scholar

63 See Eidenmüller, Horst, Die GmbH im Wettbewerb der Rechtsformen, 36 ZGR 168, 206 (2007) (showing skepticism).Google Scholar

64 Sect. 4a para. 2 GmbHG, Sect. 5 Aktiengesetz and also e.g. RGZ 7, 69 f; 88, 55; 107, 97; BGHZ 19, 105; BGHZ 29, 328.Google Scholar

65 See Nicola Preuß, Die Wahl des Satzungssitzes im geltenden Gesellschaftsrecht und nach dem MoMiG - Entwurf, 98 GmbHR 57 (2007).Google Scholar

66 Sect. 4a para. 1 GmbHG as amended by the reform bill.Google Scholar

67 Referententwurf eines Gesetzes zum Internationalen Privatrecht der Gesellschaften, Vereine und juristischen Personen of 7 January 2008, http://www.bmj.de/files/-2751/RefE%20Gesetz%20zum%20Internationalen%20Privatrecht%20der%20Gesellschaften,%20Vereine%20und%20juristischen%20Personen.pdf.Google Scholar

68 Sect. 64 GmbHG.Google Scholar

69 See BGHZ 29, 100, 102 ff.; BGHZ 138, 211, 214.Google Scholar

70 T6-0023/2007 of 01/02/2007.Google Scholar

71 See Legal Capital in Europe (Marcus Lutter, ed. 2006).Google Scholar

72 With the exception of South Dakota, Texas, and the District of Columbia, which require a minimum capital of $ 1,000.Google Scholar

73 See e.g. sect. 124 DGCL; Sect. 102 (a)(12) NYBCL.Google Scholar

74 E.g. California.Google Scholar

75 Sect. 153 (a) DGCL; § 504 (c) NYBCL.Google Scholar

76 California does not provide for par value anymore.Google Scholar

77 See Sect. 5 para. 1 GmbHG; see also John Armour, Legal Capital: An Outdated Concept?, 7 EBOR 6–27 (2006); Horst Eidenmüller, Barbara Grunewald & Ulrich Noack, Minimum Capital in the System of Legal Capital in Legal Capital in Europe (Marcus Lutter, ed. 2006).Google Scholar

78 Compare Sect. 30 GmbHG to Sect. 57 AktG.Google Scholar

79 According to Sect. 31 para. 1 a distribution to any shareholder lowering assets below the stated capital leads to a duty to return such distributions immediately. Furthermore, the other shareholders (even if they were in good faith) are liable according to Sect. 31 para. 3 if the beneficiary is unable to perform that obligation. Furthermore, under Sect. 24, GmbHG shareholders are also liable for the full payment of the registered share capital by their co-investors, although their liability is only subordinate.Google Scholar

80 Sect. 11 GmbHG.Google Scholar

81 Sect. 43 GmbHG; cf. sect. 64 para. 2 GmbHG, sect. 30 GmbHG.Google Scholar

82 Sect. 9, 9a GmbHG.Google Scholar

83 Sect. 30 GmbHG.Google Scholar

84 Sect. 24, 31 GmbHG.Google Scholar

85 BGHZ 126, 181; BGHZ 138, 211; see also Sect. 64 para. 2 GmbHG.Google Scholar

86 BGH, ZIP 2006, 467; BGHZ 125, 366, 368 f.; BGHZ 95, 330.Google Scholar

87 See (most recently) BGH case no. II ZR 3/04 of 16 July 2007 - TriHotel.Google Scholar

88 See sect. 5 para. 1 GmbHG of the MoMiG-government proposal; previously introduced in the proposal for a Mindestkapitalgesetz in 2004.Google Scholar

89 Seibert, supra note 30, at 87; it is also identical to the amount proposed for the EPC by the European parliament in its Resolution with Recommendations to the Commission on the European Private Company Statute, T6-0023/2007 of 01/02/2007; however, the proposal by the Commission only requires a minimum capital of 1 €.Google Scholar

90 See Priester, Hans-Joachim, Mindestkapital und Sacheinlageregeln, in Die GmbH-Reform in der Diskussion, VGR (Hrsg.) (Cologne, Otto Schmidt 2006).Google Scholar

91 Zöllner, Wolfgang, Konkurrenz für inländische Kapitalgesellschaften durch ausländische Rechtsträger, insbesondere durch die englische Private Limited Company, 1 GmbHR 5 (2006); Wilhelm Happ & Lorenz Holler, Limited statt GmbH?, 730 DStR 732 (2004); Wilhelmi, Rüdiger, Das Mindestkapital als Mindestschutz - eine Apologie im Hinblick auf die Diskussion um eine Reform der GmbH angesichts der englischen Limited, 13 GmbHR 21 (2006).Google Scholar

92 The reform was influenced in a draft bill of March 2007 suggested by Member of Parliament, Jürgen Gehb, see <www.gehb.de/positionen/ugg/Arbeitsentwurf-UGG.pdf>..>Google Scholar

93 Compare Schmidt [in this issue] for more details on the UG.Google Scholar

94 Sect. 5 para. 4 GmbHG; Sect. 9c para. 1 sent. 2 GmbHG.Google Scholar

95 Since BGH case no. II ZR 54/80 of 3 September 1981.Google Scholar

96 Sect. 9c GmbHG.Google Scholar

97 Sect. 8 para. 2 sent. 3 GmbHG.Google Scholar

98 Sect. 7 para. 2 will be completely eliminated.Google Scholar

99 Twelfth Council Company Law Directive 89/667/EEC of 21 December 1989 on single-member private limited-liability companies, 1989 O.J. (L 395) 40.Google Scholar

100 Sect. 19 para. 5 GmbHG.Google Scholar

101 Sect. 19 para. 4 GmbHG.Google Scholar

102 Sect. 19 para. 4 GmbHG.Google Scholar

103 Sect. 30 para. 1 GmbHG.Google Scholar

104 Sect. 30 para. 1 GmbHG as amended by the reform.Google Scholar

105 BGH case no. II ZR 171/01 of 24 November 2003.Google Scholar

106 Seibert, supra note 30, at 92.Google Scholar

107 However, replacing the strict formal rule of sect. 30 GmbHG, which prohibits any distribution which would lower available assets below the stated capital with a flexible solvency test, is not planned and was actually voted down by a strong majority at the 2007 meeting of legal professionals (Deutscher Juristentag).Google Scholar

108 See Eidenmüller, supra note 68, at 182 (assuming two strictly alternative systems without any reason to combine the two).Google Scholar

109 See Verse [in this issue].Google Scholar

110 Supra. Google Scholar

111 Sects. 32a, 32b GmbHG.Google Scholar

112 Sect. 39 para. 1 no. 5 Insolvenzordnung (bankruptcy code).Google Scholar

113 Sect. 135 Insolvenzordnung as amended by the proposal.Google Scholar

114 See Seibert, supra note 30, at 91.Google Scholar

115 Id. at 92.Google Scholar

116 Since the rule is implemented in the bankruptcy code (Insolvenzordnung) it will similarly apply to the Aktiengesellschaft and any other legal entity operating in Germany.Google Scholar

117 Sect. 15a Insolvenzordnung (bankruptcy code) as introduced by the reform bill.Google Scholar

118 Christian Kirchner et. al., Regulatory Competition in EU Corporate Law after Inspire Art: Unbundling Delaware's Product for Europe, 3 ECFLR 159 (2005); Harm-Jan de Kluiver, Inspiring a New European Company Law? – Observations on the ECJs Decision in Inspire Art from a Dutch Perspective and the Imminent Competition for Corporate Charters between EC Member States, 2 ECFLR 121 (2004).Google Scholar

119 See Ventoruzzo, Marco, “Cost-Based” And “Rules-Based” Regulatory Competition: Markets For Corporate Charters In The U.S. And In The E.U., 3 N.Y.U. J. L. & Bus. 91 (2006) (including detailed analysis).Google Scholar

120 Marco Becht et. al., Where Do Firms Incorporate?, ECGI - Law Working Paper No. 70/2006 (Sept. 2006), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=906066.Google Scholar

121 See Karst, Thomas, Die GmbH französischen Rechts, NotBZ 119 (2006) (France, Sweden and Spain as examples); Wiberg, Malcolm, Sweden: Company Law – Reform, 21(3) J.I.B.L.R. N19 (2006); Sverniov, Carl, Sweden: Company Law – Reform, 15(6) I.C.C.L.R. N55-56 (2004).Google Scholar

122 <http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/docs/epc/proposal_de.pdf>..>Google Scholar

123 See Seibert, , supra note 30, at 85 (“If you can't beat them – join them.”).Google Scholar

124 For more details on the current capital structure of the GmbH, see Frank Dornseifer, Corporate Business Forms in Europe 311 (Frank Dornseifer, ed., 1st ed., 2005); it is only slightly more flexible than the system for public corporations under the Second Directive which was largely modeled after German public corporation law.Google Scholar

125 Specifically supra * on the “Unternehmergesellschaft (haftungsbeschränkt),” a special type of GmbH with a minimum stated capital of 1 €; on the general debate cf. the essays in Marcus Lutter, Legal Capital in Europe (2006) (dealing with public corporations) and the essays in 7 EBOR (2006).Google Scholar

126 Including the elimination of superfluous articles, rephrasing of certain parts of the statute and the addition of official headings.Google Scholar

127 See Seibert, , supra note 30, at 84.Google Scholar

128 Including the incompatibility-rules regarding managers (infra *), international mobility (infra *), increased management liability for distributions to members/shareholders (infra *), and rules regarding loans by members/shareholders (infra *).Google Scholar

129 See Marcus Lutter, Für eine Unternehmer-Gesellschaft (UG) - Zur notwendigen Erweiterung der geplanten GmbH-Reform, BB-Spezial Nr. 7/1006 2 (illustrating the pro side); Schmidt, Karsten, Brüderchen und Schwesterchen für die GmbH? Eine Kritik der Vorschläge zur Vermehrung der Rechtsformen, 59 DB 1096 (2006) (illustrating the contra side).Google Scholar

130 Specifically the statements at the parliamentary hearing regarding the reform bill, supra. Google Scholar

131 See Triebel, & Otte, , supra note 10, at 311 (voicing skepticism).Google Scholar

132 See Seibert, , supra note 30, at 92 (questioning this topic).Google Scholar

133 Eidenmüller, Horst, Die GmbH im Wettbewerb der Rechtsformen, 36 ZGR 168, 181 (2007); Karsten Schmidt, Brüderchen und Schwesterchen für die GmbH? Eine Kritik der Vorschläge zur Vermehrung der Rechtsformen, 59 DB 1096 (2006).Google Scholar

134 As translated by Lenhardt, Ingrid Lynn, The Corporate And Tax Advantages Of A Limited Liability Company: A German Perspective, 64 U. Cin. L. Rev. 551, 553 (1996).Google Scholar

135 This is also an often-quoted reason for the lack of importance of the CISG in legal practice. See John E. Murray, Jr., The Neglect of CISG: A Workable Solution, 17 J. L. & Com. 365 (1998): “Reflecting on the experience under CISG, we now face the reality that it suffers from neglect, as well as ignorance and even fear.”Google Scholar

136 “Survival of the fittest” originally meant that the creature best suited for a certain situation will prevail under those conditions – leading to a distribution of numerous beings and not a single dominant species.Google Scholar