Einde inhoudsopgave
Exit rights of minority shareholders in a private limited company (IVOR nr. 72) 2010/4.2.3
4.2.3 Scope of the remedy
mr. dr. P.P. de Vries, datum 03-05-2010
- Datum
03-05-2010
- Auteur
mr. dr. P.P. de Vries
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS407455:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Ondernemingsrecht (V)
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
BGHZ 9, 157, 158: 'Die Auflösung fürht zur Vernichtung der Gesellschaft und vielfach auch zur Vernichtung des Betriebes, der Arbeitsplätze und der Firma. Derart weitreichende Folgen sind sachlich nicht gerechtfertigt, wenn der wichtige Grund nicht in den Verhältnissen der Gesellschaft, sondern ausschlieβlich in der Person eines Gesellschafters begründet ist; die Auflösung der Gesellschaft kann nur als äuβerstes Mittel in Betracht kommen.'
BGHZ 80, 346, 347-348. This was already established in 1940 by the Court of the German Empire (Reichsgericht) in RGZ 164, 257, 258.
The winding-up remedy contains a criterion with an open-ended nature, the important reason, which is further given shape to by the courts. Nonetheless, in § 61 I GmbHG the legislator offered one example of an important reason. This subsection enables a petition for the winding-up remedy if it is no longer possible to achieve the purposes for which the company has been set up.
According to § 61 I GmbHG, the important reason justifying the winding-up of the company must be related to the company's affürs. A comparable opinion is held by the Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), posing that circumstances stemming from the personal affürs of the shareholders, cannot ground an important reason to wind up the company:
"The winding-up results in the termination of the company and, frequently, also in the termination of its business, its employment and its enterprise. Such far-reaching consequences are not justified if the important reason does not stem from the company's affürs, but only from the personal affürs of a shareholder; the winding-up of the company only qualifies as a remedy of last resort."1
Nevertheless, circumstances in the personal affürs may have an impact on the affürs of the company. In particular, this may occur in companies that heavily depend on the personal cooperation of their shareholders. If there is a conflict between the shareholders stemming from their personal affürs, this conflict will usually have an impact on the further cooperation of the shareholders and may even endanger the continuation of the company. Therefore, the Supreme Court has determined that onder these specific circumstances the winding-up remedy may be applied as well.2