Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:27:08.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

German Company Law: Recent Developments and Future Challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Patrick C. Leyens

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 last decade has been a time of changes in all branches of German company law. Whilst the changes in the law of civil partnerships go to the very fundaments of what was a firm belief for a hundred years in national law, the future of the private limited company is increasingly determined by the competition of regulators in the European common market. The European dimension of modern company law making is even more pervasive in the law of stock corporations where growing convergence can be noted in regard to the national approaches of the European Member States towards internal controls. A common denominator for most of the changes in German company law is the partly court driven, partly legislature driven attempt of a better adjustment of investor and creditor protection to evolving business needs. Looking on the changes from a wider angle that includes capital markets, however, there are signals for a shifting in the traditional approach of German corporate governance towards an increasingly market driven system.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 6 , Issue 10: Special issue - Articles German Federalism: Theory and Recent Developments , 01 October 2005 , pp. 1407 - 1417
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Decisions by the Federal Court of Justice: BGHZ 146, 341. The most important developments in German company law are reported on a regular basis in the Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW). Most recently on civil and commercial partnerships: Heribert Hirte, Die Entwicklung des Personengesellschaftsrechts in Deutschland in den Jahren 2003 bis 2004, NJW 718 (2005).Google Scholar

2 BGH, NJW 1802, 1805 (2003).Google Scholar

3 On the issues under German agency law, see Alexander Hellgardt & Christian Friedrich Mayer, Die Auswirkungen nichtiger Grundverhältnisse auf die Vollmacht – eine rechtsdogmatische Einordnung und Bewertung der neueren BGH-Rechtsprechung zu den Bauherren- und Erwerbermodellen, Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Bankrecht – Wertpapier-Mitteilungen (WM) 2380 (2004). On the specific implications of European consumer protection directives, see Caroline Meller-Hannich, Haustürgeschäft, Immobilienkauf, Kreditvertrag und der enttäuschte Anleger – die Grenzen der richtlinienkonformen Auslegung und die Grenzen der Auslegung von Richtlinien, WM 1157 (2005).Google Scholar

4 GmbHG s. 64. One of the core problems is to precisely determine the time of illiquidity. For a recent analysis see Jochen Blöse, Die Geschäftsführer-Haftung für Zahlungen bei Vorliegen von Insolvenzgründen – eine Schadensersatzverpflichtung am Maßstab von Plausibilitäten, GmbHRundschau (GmbHR) 832 (2005).Google Scholar

5 See Schmidt, Karsten, Vom Eigenkapitalersatz in der Krise zur Krise des Eigenkapitalersatzrechts?, GmbHR 797, 803 (2005).Google Scholar

6 The full range of problems is discussed in Europäische Auslandsgesellschaften in Deutschland (Marcus Lutter ed., 2005).Google Scholar

7 Case C-212/97, Centros Ltd. v. Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen, Decision of 9 March 1999, E.C.R. I-1459 (1999). See for example Hanno Merkt, Centros and its Consequences for Member State Legislatures, 3 Int'l Comp. & Corp. L. J. 119 (2001).Google Scholar

8 Case C-208/00, Überseering B.V. v. Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC), Decision of 5 November 2002. See for example Kilian Baelz & Teresa 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 No. 12 (1 December 2002), at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=214.Google Scholar

9 Case C-167/01, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v. Inspire Art Ltd., decision of 30.9.2003. See for example Christian Kersting & Clemens Philipp Schindler, The ECJ's Inspire Art Decision of 30 September 2003 and its Effects on Practice, 4 German Law Journal 1277 (2003), at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=344.Google Scholar

10 For a comprehensive analysis of the whole line of decisions see Eva-Maria Kieninger, The Legal Framework of Regulatory Competition Based on Company Mobility: EU and US Compared, 6 German Law Journal 741 (2005), at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=591.Google Scholar

11 On the state of the discussion in Germany Karsten Schmidt, supra (note 5).Google Scholar

12 According to a proposal by the Schröder-Government made shortly before the elections of September 2005 the minimum capital was to be reduced to 10.000 EUR. See Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung, Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Mindestkapitals der GmbH (MindestkapG), 1 June 2005 (Draft Bill of the Government, Draft law on the Reform of the minimum capital of the limited company), available: http://www.bmj.de/media/archive/950.pdf.Google Scholar

13 BGHZ 135, 244.Google Scholar

14 Gesetz zur Unternehmensintegrität und Modernisierung des Aktiengesetzes, BT-Drs. 15/5693, 15 June 2005. The law was passed by the German parliament on 15 June 2005 and will come into force on 1 November 2005. For details see Markus Roth, Das unternehmerische Ermessen des Vorstands, BetriebsBerater (BB) 1066, 1067 (2004).Google Scholar

15 With a focus on common trends in Europe, see Klaus J. Hopt & Patrick C. Leyens, Board Models in Europe – Recent Developments of Internal Corporate Governance Structures in Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy, Eur. Comp. & Fin. L. Rev. 135, 169 (2004). For a comparison between Germany and the U.S., see Patrick C. Leyens, Deutscher Aufsichtsrat und U.S.-Board: ein- oder zweistufiges Verwaltungssystem? Zum Stand der rechtsvergleichenden Corporate Governance Debatte, 67 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 57, 69, 96 (2003).Google Scholar

16 Gesetz zur Kontrolle und Transparenz im Unternehmensbereich, 27 July 1998, BGBl. I S. 786 (Federal Gazette). For details see Dieter Feddersen, Neue gesetzliche Anforderungen an den Aufsichtsrat, Die Aktiengesellschaft (AG) 385 (2000); Peter Hommelhoff & Daniela Mattheus, Corporate Governance nach dem KonTraG, AG 249 (1998); see also John W. Cioffi, Restructuring “Germany Inc.”: The Politics of Corporate Governance Reform in Germany and the European Union, 24 Law & Policy 355 (2002).Google Scholar

17 On the German supervisory board, see Klaus J. Hopt, The German Two-Tier Board: Experiences, Theories, Reforms, in Comparative Corporate Governance – The State of the Art and Emerging Research 227 (Klaus J. Hopt, Hideki Kanda, Mark J. Roe, Eddy Wymeersch, Stefan Prigge eds., 1998).Google Scholar

18 On the implications for the interplay between supervisory board and auditor, see Peter Hommelhoff, Die neue Position des Abschlußprüfers im Kraftfeld der aktienrechtlichen Organisationsverfassung, Teil I, BB 2567, 2573 (1998), and Teil II, BB 2625, 2634 (1998).Google Scholar

19 Bericht der Regierungskommission Corporate Governance (Theodor Baums ed., 2001). The strengths and weaknesses of the report were comprehensively discussed on a joint symposium of the leading German company law reviews, the Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht und Wirschaftsrecht (ZHR) and the Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht (ZGR). See Corporate Governance – Gemeinschaftssymposium der Zeitschriften ZHR/ZGR, ZHR supplement No. 71 (Peter Hommelhoff, Marcus Lutter, Karsten Schmidt, Wolfgang Schön, Peter Ulmer eds., 2002); for an inside account of the preparation of the commission's report, see Reforming German Corporate Governance: Inside a Law Making Process of a Very New Nature. Interview with Professor Theodor Baums, interviewed by Peer Zumbansen, 2 German Law Journal No. 12 (2001), at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=43.Google Scholar

20 Transparenz- und Publizitätsgesetz, 19 July 2002, BGBl. I S. 2681. For details see the contributions in Das Transparenz- und Publizitätsgesetz (Heribert Hirte ed., 2003).Google Scholar

21 On the new corporate governance statement Marcus Lutter, Die Erklärung zum Corporate Governance Kodex gemäß § 161 AktG, 166 ZHR 523 (2000); Peter Ulmer, Der Deutsche Corporate Governance Kodex – ein neues Regulierungsinstrument für börsennotierte Aktiengesellschaften, 166 ZHR 150 (2002) 150.Google Scholar

22 Deutscher Corporate Governance Kodex/German Corporate Governance Code, issued by the Regierungskommission Commission Corporate Governance on 26 February 2002, available in German and English at: http://www.corporate-governance-code.de/. The focus of the most recent changes of 2 June 2005 has been on a (too careful) increase of the standards of independence of the supervisory board. See Jan Lieder, Das unabhängige Aufsichtsratsmitglied – zu den Änderungen des Deutschen Corporate Governance Kodex, Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht (NZG) 569 (2005).Google Scholar

23 On England, see Pettet, Ben, The Combined Code: A Firm Place for Self-Regulation in Corporate Governance, J. Int'l Bank. L. 394 (1998). Corporate Governance Codes from all European Member States are available on web pages of the European Corporate Governance Institute: http://www.ecgi.org.Google Scholar

24 See Council Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001 of 8. 10. 2001 on the Statute for a European Company (SE), OJ L 294/1, 10. 11. 2001, Art. 38 b).Google Scholar

25 For example: France and Italy. See Klaus J. Hopt & Patrick C. Leyens, supra (note 15), at 156.Google Scholar

26 European Commission, Communication to the Council and the European Parliament of 21 May 2003, Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union – A Plan to Move Forward, COM (2003) 284(01). The Action Plan follows closely the recommendations of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts, A Modern Regulatory Framework for Company Law in Europe, European Commission, Brussels, 4 November 2002, available at: http://www.europa.eu.int/.Google Scholar

27 Commission Recommendation of 15 February 2005 on the role of non-executive or supervisory directors of listed companies and on the committees of the supervisory board, OJ L 52, 25 February 2005, p. 51. An analysis is provided by Klaus J. Hopt, Europäisches Gesellschaftsrecht und deutsche Unternehmensverfassung – Aktionsplan und Interdependenzen, ZIP 461, 467 (2005).Google Scholar

28 This is the view prevailing in countries that do without a system of co-determination as for example the UK. See Paul L. Davies, A Note on Labour and Corporate Governance in the U.K., in: Comparative Corporate Governance (supra note 17), 373, at 377. A comparative analysis of labor representation in the European Member States is provided by Unternehmens-Mitbestimmung der Arbeitnehmer im Recht der EU-Mitgliedstaaten (Theodor Baums, Peter Ulmer eds., 2004).Google Scholar

29 To the point: Ulmer, Peter, Paritätische Arbeitnehmermitbestimmung im Aufsichtsrat von Großunternehmen – noch zeitgemäß?, 166 ZHR 271, 275 (2002). In the past only few named the problems, see Klaus J. Hopt, Labor Representation on Corporate Boards: Impacts and Problems for Corporate Governance and Economic Integration in Europe, 14 Int'l Rev. L. & Econ. 203, 206 (1994).Google Scholar

30 Berliner Netzwerk Corporate Governance, 12 Thesen zur Modernisierung der Mitbestimmung, AG 200 (2004) (thesis 2, 11), also available at: http://www.bccg.tu-berlin.de/main/publikationen/12-Thesen-Papier.pdf.Google Scholar

31 Bilanzrechtsreformgesetz, 4 December 2004, BGBl. I S. 3166.Google Scholar

32 Bilanzkontrollgesetz, 15 December 2004, BGBl. I S. 3408.Google Scholar

33 Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht.Google Scholar

34 In 2002 the powers of the former Bundesaufsichtsamt für den Wertpapierhandel (BAWe) and the Bundesaufsichtsamt für das Kreditwesen (BAKred) were concentrated in one single authority. This development is in line with the increasing need for capital market supervision and also with the approaches taken in other European Member States as for example the U.K. where the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 created the powerful Financial Services Authority as a new “Super-regulator” for the supervision of Financial Markets.Google Scholar

35 From a comparative perspective Paul L. Davies, Board Structure in the UK and Germany: Convergence or Continuing Divergence?, 2 Int'l Comp. & Corp. L. J. 435 (2001). For a note on the “erosion” of the traditional networking approach see Peer Zumbansen, Germany Inc. Eroding? – Board Structure, CEO and Rhenish Capitalism –, 3 German Law Journal No. 6 (1 June 2002), at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=156.Google Scholar

36 Baum, Harald, Change of Governance in Historic Perspective: The German Experience, in: Corporate Governance in Context: Corporations, State, and Markets in Europe, Japan, and the US (Klaus J. Hopt, Eddy Wymeersch, Hideki Kanda, Harald Baum eds., forthcoming 2005). Similar Ulrich Noack & Dirk Zetzsche, Corporate Governance Reform in Germany: the Second Decade, SSRN-Working Paper, June 2005, available at: http://ssrn.com/Abstract=646761.Google Scholar

37 A comprehensive analysis on theory and practice of liability for false capital market information in the European Member States, Switzerland and the U.S., including an economic analysis, has been undertaken by the Max Planck Institute for Foreign Private and Private International Law, Hamburg. The project started with an expert opinion for the German Federal Ministry of Finance on the law of prospectus liability in the EU member states and Switzerland. See Prospekt- und Kapitalmarktinformationshaftung – Recht und Reform in der Europäischen Union, der Schweiz und den USA – (Klaus J. Hopt, Hans-Christoph Voigt eds., 2005).Google Scholar

38 Börsengesetz, 21 June 2002, BGBl. I 2010.Google Scholar

39 Wertpapier-Verkaufsprospektgesetz, 9 September 1998, BGBl. I 2701.Google Scholar

40 Gesetz über den Wertpapierhandel, 9 September 1998, BGBl. I 2708.Google Scholar

41 A further amendment to be noted in this context is the introduction of a new regime for market manipulation under WpHG ss. 20a et seq. See David C. Donald, Applying Germany's Market Manipulation Rules to Disruptive Trades on the Eurex and MTS Platforms, 6 German Law Journal 650, 657 (2005), at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=581.Google Scholar

42 Bundesministerium der Finanzen (Federal Ministry of Finance), Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Verbesserung der Haftung für falsche Kapitalmarktinformation, 7 October 2004, available at: http://www.jura.uni-augsburg.de/prof/moellers/aktuelles/kapinhag_gestoppt.html.Google Scholar

43 For an overview on the draft law and for an analysis of its key problems, see Johannes Semler & Stephan Gittermann, Persönliche Haftung der Organmitglieder für Fehlinformationen des Kapitalmarktes – Zeigt das KapInHaG den richtigen Weg?, NZG 1081, 1085 (2004).Google Scholar

44 Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on Takeover Bids, OJ L 142, 30.4.2004, p. 12. The finally adopted text to large parts goes back to the Report of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts on Issues Related to Takeover Bids, European Commission, Brussels, 10 January 2002, available at: http://www.europa.eu.int/. See hereto, e.g., Silja Maul & Athanasios Kouloridas, The Takeover bids Directive, 5 German Law Journal 355 (2004), at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=411; for a background of the Directive's painful legislative history, see Peer Zumbansen, European Corporate Law and National Divergences: The Case of Takeover Regulation, 3 Wash. U. Glob. Stud. L. Rev. 867 (2004), at http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hela/papers/Zumbansen%20National%20Divergences.pdf.Google Scholar

45 Wertpapiererwerbs – und Übernahmegesetz, 20 December 2001, BGBl. I 3822.Google Scholar

46 BGBl. I S. 585.Google Scholar

47 Decisions of 4 June 2002, Cases C-367/98 (Portugal), C-483/99 (French Republic) and C-503/99 (Belgium), and of 13 May 2003, Cases C-98/01 (United Kingdom), C-463/00 (Spain). See Johannes Adolff, Turn of the Tide?: The “Golden Share” Judgements of the European Court of Justice and the Liberalization of the European Capital Markets, 3 German Law Journal No. 8 (1 August 2002), at http://germanlawjournal.com/print.php?id=170.Google Scholar

48 European Commission, Press Release, Brussels, 13 October 2004, IP/04/1209.Google Scholar