In a pivotal decision on September 17, 2024, the Munich Regional Court (LG Munich I, Case No. 20 O 14715/21) ruled on a case concerning the liability of managing directors and consulting services provided during a failed corporate restructuring. The ruling offers important insights into the extent of managerial responsibility in Germany and highlights the critical issues of contract-based claims, tort liability, and the statute of limitations.
Here’s what foreign business leaders need to know about this ruling and its broader implications.
The Background
The case arose from a failed corporate restructuring attempt within the “S…” group, which had been taken over by Sol. AG as part of a crisis management strategy. The plaintiff had acquired claims from several companies that became insolvent during the restructuring. The plaintiff sought damages against multiple managing directors and a consulting firm, claiming that poor advice and incorrect financial data processing led to the insolvency of the companies.
At the core of the case were claims based on alleged contractual breaches, tortious acts, and the timeliness of filing those claims.
Key Legal Points of the Court’s Decision
- Contractual Claims
The plaintiff argued that the consulting firm owed a duty of care to the companies under a contract that extended protections to third parties. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the advisory services provided were inadequate, pointing to the failure to implement necessary software upgrades to the companies’ inventory management system. The court rejected this claim, ruling that the affected companies themselves had direct contractual rights and did not require additional protection as third parties. Therefore, no contractual breach was found on behalf of the consulting firm or the managing directors. - Tort Liability
The plaintiff also pursued tort claims, citing violations of protective laws and negligent conduct that allegedly contributed to the insolvency of the companies. The argument focused on whether the directors and consultants had provided erroneous advice that directly impacted the liquidity of the companies. However, the court found insufficient evidence to support claims of gross negligence or intentional wrongdoing. As a result, the court dismissed these tort claims, stating that the plaintiff had not demonstrated enough proof of misconduct to justify liability. - Statute of Limitations
A crucial aspect of the decision was the statute of limitations. The defendants raised the defense that the claims had expired, and the court agreed. The claims dated back to events from 2016 and 2017, and by the end of 2020, they were deemed time-barred. Importantly, the plaintiff’s attempts to interrupt the statute of limitations by filing preliminary legal notices (known as Mahnbescheide in German law) were unsuccessful because they lacked sufficient specificity to halt the limitations period. - Shadow Director Liability
The plaintiff also attempted to hold the defendants liable as de facto directors, suggesting that their involvement in the decision-making process during the restructuring made them comparable to formal directors. This theory would impose personal liability for their actions as if they were official managing directors. The court rejected this argument, concluding that the defendants acted solely in advisory roles, which is insufficient to establish the legal status of a shadow director (faktischer Geschäftsführer). Since they were not performing the functions of a managing director, they could not be held to the same level of responsibility.
Implications of the Decision
This ruling underscores several key principles for managing directors and consultants involved in corporate governance and restructuring:
- Managing Director Liability: The decision highlights the strict standards that must be met to hold managing directors liable under both contractual and tort principles. Foreign business leaders should take note that in Germany, liability claims must be backed by clear evidence of gross negligence or intentional misconduct.
- Statute of Limitations: The ruling also serves as a reminder that timely action is crucial when pursuing legal claims. The statute of limitations for such claims in Germany is generally three years, and attempts to interrupt the limitations period must be precise and well-documented.
- Advisory vs. Executive Roles: The court made a clear distinction between those acting in an advisory capacity and those who are formal or de facto directors. Advisers, even if they are heavily involved in decision-making, are not automatically subject to the same level of liability as formal managing directors. This is an important consideration for consultants and external advisers.
Conclusion
The Munich court’s decision clarifies the high evidentiary standards required for managing director liability in Germany, particularly in complex business scenarios such as corporate restructurings. For foreign business leaders operating in or with German companies, this case serves as an important precedent, emphasizing the need for meticulous record-keeping, clear contractual terms, and timely pursuit of legal claims.
Understanding the nuances of managing director liability in Germany is essential for navigating corporate governance and minimizing legal risks, especially during periods of financial instability.
- BiotechCrime: Biotechnology and biohacking as a criminal offense - 10. February 2025
- European arrest warrant: Support in Germany - 2. February 2025
- Red Notice - 2. February 2025