As soon as two parties are domiciled in different countries, the contract should contain terms on applicable law and jurisdiction. Using the example of company acquisitions, the following article examines the risks arising from the absence of such contract terms and outlines what needs to be taken into account when drawing up such agreements.
If a GmbH [limited liability company] share is to be redeemed against the will of the person concerned, it is necessary to set an important course already in statutes but also while drawing up a redemption resolution. The BGH [Federal Court of Justice] has found in its decision of 26 June 2018 the nullity of a redemption resolution of 26 June 2000 – the findings made are of considerable importance for the consulting practice beyond the individual case.
On 8 June 2016, the European Union adopted the Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (the “Privacy Directive”). Even though the implementation of German legislation has not yet been completed, there are already indications of what companies will have to take into account in the future to protect business information.
Following the extension of the scope of the review of foreign investments in Germany in July 2017, the German Federal Cabinet [Bundeskabinett] has resolved on another tightening of the scope of investment reviews on December 19, 2018. In addition, an EU-wide legislative procedure in this field is about to be finalized.
On 25 May 2018, the ECOFIN Council, consisting of the Ministers of Economics and Finance, passed the Directive (EU) 2018/822 amending Directive 2011/16/EU on the mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation on relation to reportable cross-border arrangements. This is intended to create an obligation to report potentially aggressive tax-planning arrangements. The directive must be transposed into national law by 31 December 2019. The disclosure obligation will come into force on 1 July 2020.
A change of shareholder can lead to a proportional or complete elimination of the existing losses of a company. However, this shall not apply if the acquisition of the investment is made with the aim of restructuring the company. Up to now, however, the EU Commission has regarded this so-called restructuring clause as state aid. The European Court of Justice [ECJ] has recently declared this state aid decision null and void. Therefore, the restructuring clause can be applied again.
On 8th September 2016, the federal states of Hesse, North Rhine-Westphalia and Schleswig-Holstein decided to implement a working group with respect to an intended reform of the real estate transfer tax. The reform targets to close down loopholes with respect to structures which are considered abusive regarding the sale of company shares which (mainly) hold real estate properties. Such working group presented a working paper with the key points for new statutory provisions on 21th June 2018.
According to consistent case-law of the Federal Court of Justice [Bundesgerichtshof – BGH], shareholders can assert certain claims against a fellow partner as litigants in the way of “actio pro socio”. Up to now, it had been a matter of dispute whether or not the limited partner of a GmbH & Co KG is also granted the right to assert claims of a limited partnership against a third-party managing director of the GmbH & Co KG’s general partner. In its decision II ZR 255/16 dated 19.12.2017, the BGH denied this right.
As of 6 January 2018, under the Remuneration Transparency Act [Entgelttransparenzgesetz – EntgTranspG], employees can demand information from their employer about the remuneration of colleagues of the opposite sex working in the same or an equivalent occupation. What is important and how can you keep bureaucracy to a minimum?
The years of criticism of the case law of the 7th Senate of the Federal Labor Court [Bundesarbeitsgericht – BAG] by the Regional Labor Courts and the literature have shown their effect: On 6 June 2018, the Federal Constitutional Court [Bundesverfassungsgericht – BVerfG] overruled the BAG’s previous case law on the prohibition of pre-employment in the case of unfounded time limits, leaving legal uncertainty behind. The three-year limit developed and applied by the BAG contradicts the Constitution, according to the BVerfG.