ReleaseWire Connect

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London – grprainer.com/en conclude: The Federal Labour Court [Bundesarbeitsgericht / BAG], in its ruling (File number: AZR 907/11) dealt with the question whether claims by “latecomers” that were not yet registered when the insolvency court confirmed the insolvency plan, are to be excluded. In the present case, insolvency proceedings regarding the defendant’s assets were started in 2009 and discontinued in the same year. The finally confirmed insolvency plan excluded unregistered claims. The plaintiff, who had been employed by the defendant from 2007 to 2008 as a subcontract worker, filed a law suit in early 2011 for a higher settlement.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London – grprainer.com/en conclude: Under the Insolvency Code (InsO), the trustee in bankruptcy – with regard to the assets covered by the creditor’s segregation rights – must also take into account the possibility of a more favourable disposal offered by the creditor for the totality of assets. This also includes, for example, a takeover by the creditor. If the trustee in bankruptcy does not take advantage of the more favourable disposal, the creditor must be positioned as if such a possibility had been taken advantage of.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London www.grprainer.com/en conclude: In its judgment of June 21, 2013 (Az.: I-16 U 172/12), the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Düsseldorf commented on the prior jurisprudence regarding fiduciary duties between a manufacturer and a distributor. The manufacturer ought to be obliged to reasonably accommodate the needs worthy of protection of the distributor, which subordinates extensively not only its own activity but also its business operations and the invested capital to the interests of the manufacturer, and not contravene its interests without justifiable cause.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London – www.grprainer.com/en conclude: In its judgment of June 4, 2013 (File number: II ZR 207.10), the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) ruled that an obligation by a financially incapable partner to repay considerable sums based on the partnership agreement of a private company, which the other partner contributes and which go to the partner’s husband who is acting in the interest of the company, is not contrary to common practice if the wife – due to her position as a partner – has an adequate financial interest in promoting the corporate purpose in connection with the payments.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London – grprainer.com/en conclude: A limited liability company (GmbH) is usually established for the purpose of achieving economic gains. A non-material purpose for a GmbH exists when the company is not pursuing any economic interests. A GmbH could also have other intended purposes. For example, a financial administration may form a GmbH for the purpose of public interest services. It could thus profit from the GmbH’s limited liability without having to accept a loss of influence. With increasing frequency, self-employed people establish a GmbH; this is especially useful for lawyers, tax consultants and engineers.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London – www.grprainer.com/en conclude: The Superior Court [OLG] of Hamm (File number: 3 UF 43/13) had to deal with the effect of Alzheimer-type dementia on the decision in divorce proceedings. The petitioner, who suffers from Alzheimer disease, and the respondent separated at the end of 2011 after eight months of marriage. In 2012, the petitioner’s caregiver filed a petition for divorce. The family court granted the divorce in spite of the respondent’s claim that her then husband wanted to continue the marriage. The OLG of Hamm has now confirmed this.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London – www.grprainer.com/en conclude: This principle, which the Federal Supreme Court [BGH] has emphasized again and again in its on-going case law, also applies if the company is dissolved through the opening of bankruptcy proceedings (BGH, file number: II ZR 176/10). In the case at hand, a shareholder of a company had sued for damages due to the loss of future dividends. Both plaintiff and defendant were shareholders of a limited company (GmbH). The defendant had quit his shareholdings and gone to a competing company which had then taken over the customers as well as orders already underway. The company had to declare bankruptcy because of the lost business.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London – grprainer.com/en conclude: In its ruling of April 11, 2013 (File number: II-4 UF 232/12), the Superior Court [Oberlandesgericht / OLG] of Hamm decided that unilaterally incriminating provisions in divorce settlements, such as waiving the right of pension equalization in such a settlement, is to fall under the subject of being contrary to common practice only when there is good cause for assuming that such a settlement is based on interfering with subjective contractual parity. The unilateral distribution of burdens in a divorce settlement alone is said to be insufficient for assuming it to be contrary to common practice. It is necessary to take the overall individual situation of the parties into account when a settlement is concluded. A unilaterally incriminating provision is said to allow the assumption of a reprehensible attitude only if the unbalanced contents of the settlement point to a unilateral dominance of the favoured spouse based on the uneven negotiating positions of the spouses.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London grprainer.com/en conclude: The media have paid more and more attention to the subject of data protection in recent years. Quite often, they commented on the loss of data in the public and private sector. But especially, the loss of data becomes extremely acute when the number of affected customers is very large. Publicly accessible communication services are particularly vulnerable to such a danger. It therefore makes sense that it is now becoming mandatory for telephone and internet providers to report the loss of data to those affected and to the authorities within the specified deadline.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London grprainer.com/en conclude: In the instant case, an employee of a company contacted employees of a competitor via a social network for work-related contact. In the process, he expressed himself in a way that in the eyes of the competing company these statements could be categorised as derisive. Moreover, attempts were made to entice the employees away. The courts then had to deal with the question of whether this constituted an anti-competitive violation. While the District Court of Heidelberg answered this in the negative, the Regional Court (LG) of Heidelberg found in favour of the competitor (Az.: 1 S 58/11).