Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Shareholders’ Liability for Ruining a Company in Light of the CJEU’s Judgment in Kornhaas

  • Article
  • Published:
European Business Organization Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The author examines whether the concept presented by the CJEU in its Kornhaas judgment of 2015 may also find application when seeking the personal liability of the members (shareholders) of an EU foreign company having its COMI in Germany. The background against which the following article considers this question is the legal concept of Existenzvernichtungshaftung—the personal liability of GmbH shareholders for ruining a company—as developed by the German Supreme Court of Justice. The author discusses the CJEU’s judgment in the Kornhaas case and its background and consequences, as well as briefly discusses separate corporate identity and its limitations, including theories of disregarding the autonomy of a corporation and its variation of Existenzvernichtungshaftung. On the basis of that analysis the author examines both the question of whether Existenzvernichtungshaftung is covered by lex fori concursus under the EIR and that of whether its application constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment under the rules developed in Kornhaas. In conclusion, the author analyzes the possible legal consequences of the views presented in this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The paper uses ‘company’ and ‘corporation’ interchangeably.

  2. Hereinafter ‘GmbH’.

  3. The Court obtained its current name with the coming into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 and is referred to in the text as ‘CJEU’; previously it was called the ‘Court of Justice of the European Communities’.

  4. ECJ, Case C-212/97 Centros, ECLI:EU:C:1999:126.

  5. ECJ, Case C-208/00 Überseering, ECLI:EU:C:2002:632.

  6. ECJ, Case C-167/01 Inspire Art, ECLI:EU:C:2003:512.

  7. As observed by Schall, in Germany the real-seat theory has been a defense mechanism to keep out companies without legal capital. See Schall (2005), p 1534.

  8. Kersting and Schindler (2003), p 1277.

  9. Statistics show that the majority of limited liability companies established by German residents have never planned to run their business in the United Kingdom and have had minimum business contacts with England and Wales. See Schäfer (2015), pp 158–159.

  10. Hereinafter referred to as the ‘European Union’ or ‘EU’.

  11. CJEU, Case C-594/14 Kornhaas, ECLI:EU:C:2015:806.

  12. Bundesgerichtshof, hereinafter referred to as ‘BGH’.

  13. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings [2000] OJ L160/1, hereinafter referred to as ‘EIR 2000’.

  14. Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings [2015] OJ L141/19, hereinafter referred to as ‘EIR 2015’.

  15. Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung—Act on companies with limited liability of 20 April 1892 (Federal Law Gazette III, p 4123-1), as last amended by Art. 10 of the Act of 17 July 2017 (Federal Law Gazette I, p 2446), hereinafter referred to as ‘GmbHG’.

  16. Insolvenzordnung–Insolvency Statute of 5 October 1994 (Federal Law Gazette I, p 2866), as last amended by Art. 24 section 3 of the Act of 23 June 2017 (Federal Law Gazette I, p 1693), hereinafter referred to as ‘InsO’.

  17. CJEU, Case C-594/14 Kornhaas, ECLI:EU:C:2015:806, para. 2.

  18. Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union—Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union—Protocols—Annexes—Declarations annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007—Tables of equivalences [2012] OJ C 326/1–390, hereinafter referred to as ‘TFEU’.

  19. Ringe (2016).

  20. Ringe (2016).

  21. Schall (2016), p 289.

  22. Schall (2016), p 289; Wessels (2015).

  23. Napierała 2017, p 49; Wansleben (2016), p 78.

  24. Ringe (2016); Lowe and Coverdale (2015).

  25. Stones (2015); Arabasz (2016).

  26. Virgos and Garcimartin (2004), p 70.

  27. CJEU, Case C-594/14 Kornhaas, ECLI:EU:C:2015:806, para. 19.

  28. CJEU, Case C-594/14 Kornhaas, ECLI:EU:C:2015:806, paras. 19–20.

  29. CJEU, Case C-594/14 Kornhaas, ECLI:EU:C:2015:806, para. 20. See in this respect also CJEU, Case C-212/15 ENEFI, ECLI:EU:C:2016:841, paras. 22–23.

  30. See in this respect CJEU, Case C-212/15 ENEFI, ECLI:EU:C:2016:841, para. 18.

  31. Virgos and Garcimartin (2004), p 72. The rule on coincidence between forum and ius should, among other things, facilitate the administration of the proceedings.

  32. Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) [2012] OJ L351/1.

  33. ECJ, Case C-339/07 Seagon, ECLI:EU:C:2009:83, para. 21; CJEU, Case C-295/13 H, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2410, para. 17.

  34. CJEU, Case C-157/13 Nickel, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2145, para. 27; CJEU, Case C-295/13 H, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2410, para. 21.

  35. CJEU, Case C-295/13 H, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2410, para. 22.

  36. Kindler (2016), p 137.

  37. CJEU, Case C-295/13 H, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2410, para. 25.

  38. CJEU, Case C-213/10 F-Tex, ECLI:EU:C:2012:215, para. 36. Kindler questioned the view of the CJEU that the pure fact whether or not an insolvency administrator is entitled to institute a particular civil action may affect neither the applicable jurisdiction nor legal classification of such an action as insolvency law. In this view, a claim cannot lose its insolvency classification only by assignment to a third party: Kindler (2016), p 138.

  39. ECJ, Case C-174/08 NCC [2009] ECR I-10567, para. 24; CJEU, Case C-396/09 Interedil, ECLI:EU:C:2011:671, para. 42.

  40. CJEU, Case C-295/13 H, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2410.

  41. There are three sources of European Union law: primary law (the Treaties establishing the European Union, including TFEU), secondary law (directives, regulations, including EIR, and decisions) and supplementary law (elements of law not provided for by the Treaties). See Sources of European Union Law, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=URISERV%3Al14534 (accessed 4 March 2017).

  42. ECJ, Case C-55/94 Gebhard, ECLI:EU:C:1995:41, para. 25; see also ECJ, Case 2/74 Reyners, ECLI:EU:C:1974:68, para. 21.

  43. Khan (2015), p 372.

  44. Szydło (2007), chapter II para. 6.1.

  45. ECJ, Case 2–74 Reyners, ECLI:EU:C:1974:68, para. 32.

  46. See Art. 49 para. 2 TFEU.

  47. Szydło (2007), chapter II para. 6.3.

  48. CJEU, Case C-594/14 Kornhaas, ECLI:EU:C:2015:806, para. 23. See, to that effect, ECJ, Case C-208/00 Überseering, ECLI:EU:C:2002:632, para. 82.

  49. CJEU, Case C-594/14 Kornhaas, ECLI:EU:C:2015:806, para. 24; ECJ, Case C-167/01 Inspire Art, ECLI:EU:C:2003:512, para. 141.

  50. Szydło (2017), p 1859.

  51. CJEU, Case C-594/14 Kornhaas, ECLI:EU:C:2015:806, para. 28.

  52. ECJ, Joined cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Keck and Mithouard, ECLI:EU:C:1993:905, paras. 15–17.

  53. Ungan (2005), p 362; Joined cases C-418/93, C-419/93, C-420/93, C-421/93, C-460/93, C-461/93, C-462/93, C-464/93, C-9/94, C-10/94, C-11/94, C-14/94, C-15/94, C-23/94, C-24/94 and C-332/94 Semeraro Casa Uno Srl v. Sindaco del Comune di Erbusco (C-418/93) et al., ECLI:EU:C:1996:242, para. 32.

  54. Ungan (2005), p 364.

  55. Schall (2016), pp 291–292.

  56. CJEU, Case C-594/14 Kornhaas, ECLI:EU:C:2015:806, paras. 26, 27.

  57. Kindler (2016), p 138.

  58. Szydło (2017), p 1860. This view has been based by some authors on the assumption that national provisions which implement secondary European law, by definition, comply with primary law, including fundamental freedoms. However, as observed by Szydło, the provisions of the EIR are merely conflict of law rules which determine the applicable national provisions but not their content.

  59. Ringe (2017), p 276.

  60. Lindemanns (2016); Szydło (2017), pp 1861–1864.

  61. In particular: ECJ, Case C-565/08 European Commission v. Italian Republic, ECLI:EU:C:2011:188; ECJ, Case C-81/09 Idryma Typou, ECLI:EU:C:2010:622; ECJ, Case C-171/08 European Commission v. Portuguese Republic, ECLI:EU:C:2010:412.

  62. Napierała (2017), p 49.

  63. Wansleben (2016), p 76.

  64. Wansleben (2016), p 78.

  65. Opalski (2012), pp 10–11.

  66. Steffek (2011), p 770.

  67. Steffek (2009), pp 78–79.

  68. Romanowski (2014b), pp 40–41.

  69. Steffek (2009), pp 78–79; Steffek (2011), p 773.

  70. Hansmann and Kraakman (2000), pp 393, 398–405.

  71. Hansmann and Kraakman (2000), p 393.

  72. Eidenmüller (2006a), p 487; CJEU Case C-81/09 Idryma Typou, ECLI:EU:C:2010:622, para. 42.

  73. Romanowski (2014a), pp 46–49.

  74. Peterson (2018), p 64.

  75. Steffek (2011), p 776.

  76. Engert (2006), p 8. On the other hand, a lower level of obligatory equity capital may incentivize the set-up of new companies. Braun, Eidenmüller, Engert and Hornuf (2013), pp 146–147.

  77. Targosz (2005), chapter 2 section 4.2.

  78. Targosz (2005), chapter 2 section 4.2.

  79. Steffek (2011), p 769.

  80. Reichsgericht.

  81. Cited from BGH, Decision of 29 November 1956, II ZR 156/55, JurionRS 1956, 13420.

  82. Translating ‘Mitglieder der Verbandsperson haften für die Schulden des Sondervermögens, wenn die Voraussetzungen für die vermögensmäßige Selbständigkeit nicht erfüllt sind oder die Haftungsbeschränkung zweckwidrig missbraucht wird’. Wiedemann (1980), p 221.

  83. Serick (1955).

  84. Müller-Freienfels (1957).

  85. BGH, Decision of 16 July 2007, II ZR 3/04, lexetius.com/2007,1959, Trihotel.

  86. BGH, Decision of 17 September 2001, II ZR 178/99, lexetius.com/2001,1224, Bremer Vulkan.

  87. BGH, Decision of 25 February 2002, II ZR 196/00, lexetius.com/2002,494, L-Kosmetik.

  88. BGH, Decision of 24 June 2002, II ZR 300/00, lexetius.com/2002,1279, KBV.

  89. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, Civil Code in the version promulgated on 2 January 2002 (Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt] I, pp 42, 2909; 2003 I, p 738), last amended by Art. 2 of the Act of 21 February 2017 (Federal Law Gazette I, p 258), hereinafter referred to as ‘BGB’.

  90. BGH, Decision of 28 April 2008, II ZR 264/06, lexetius.com/2008,1352, Gamma.

  91. BGH, Decision of 9 February 2009, II ZR 292/07, lexetius.com/2009,647, Sanitary.

  92. BGH, Decision of 16 July 2007, II ZR 3/04, lexetius.com/2007,1959, Trihotel para. 20; see also e.g. Schillig (2007b), p 484.

  93. Ulmer (2002), p 1051.

  94. BGH, Decision of 24 June 2002, II ZR 300/00, lexetius.com/2002,1279, KBV para. 18.

  95. BGH, Decision of 16 July 2007, II ZR 3/04, lexetius.com/2007,1959, Trihotel para. 19.

  96. Schillig (2007b), p 486.

  97. Lutter and Banerjea (2003), pp 417–418.

  98. Casper (2008), p 1136.

  99. Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Missbräuchen (MoMiG) pp 105–108, http://www.gmbhr.de/heft/12_07/MoMiG_RegE_230507.pdf (accessed 5 March 2017).

  100. For the sake of clarity it should be noted that, in the context of corporate groups, similar cases were adjudicated by the BGH also under the concept of ‘faktischer Konzern’ (factual concern/corporate group). See the landmark decision of BGH in Autokran: BGH, Decision of 16 September 1985, II ZR 275/84, JurionRS 1985, 13217. The BGH withdrew from this concept in Bremer Vulkan.

  101. BGH, Decision of 24 June 2002, II ZR 300/00, lexetius.com/2002,1279, KBV para. 18.

  102. Goette (2005), p 200; Röhricht (2005), pp 514 et seq.

  103. Casper (2008), p 1136.

  104. Riedemann (2007), p 252; Eidenmüller (2006a), pp 487–488; Ungan (2005), pp 370–374.

  105. Kindler (2015), p 234.

  106. Włodyka (2002), p 341.

  107. See Art. 1.2 of Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) [2008] OJ L177/6.

  108. Kindler (2015), p 244.

  109. Casper (2009), pp 1126–1127.

  110. Casper (2009), p 1127.

  111. Riedemann (2007), p 220.

  112. BGH, Decision of 16 July 2007, II ZR 3/04, lexetius.com/2007,1959, Trihotel para. 18.

  113. See e.g. Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht, Decision of 21 November 2006, Az. 4 U 49/06—16, JurionRS 2006, no. 32496.

  114. BGH, Decision of 16 July 2007, II ZR 3/04, lexetius.com/2007,1959, Trihotel para. 36.

  115. Casper (2008), p 1135.

  116. Kindler (2015), p 239.

  117. Kindler (2015), p 246.

  118. According to § 15a section 4 InsO, anyone who, contrary to the obligation arising from § 15a section 1, does not file a request for the opening of proceedings, does not correctly file a request or does not file a request in good time shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than 3 years or a fine.

  119. According to § 823 section 2 BGB, a person who commits a breach of a statute that is intended to protect another person is liable to make compensation to the other party for the damage arising from this. If, according to the contents of the statute, it may also be breached without fault, then liability for compensation only exists in the case of fault.

  120. BGH, Decision of 16 July 2007, II ZR 3/04, lexetius.com/2007,1959, Trihotel para. 31.

  121. BGH, Decision of 20 September 2004, II ZR 302/02, lexetius.com/2004,2308; BGH, Decision of 25 July 2005, II ZR 390/03, lexetius.com/2005,1956.

  122. Casper (2008), p 1135.

  123. Schall (2005), p 1537.

  124. BGH, Decision of 12 July 2011, II ZR 28/10, NJW 2011, 3372.

  125. As a reaction to the CJEU’s decision in the Inspire Art case, a broad amendment to the GmbHG has been introduced, including reclassification, already noted, of the obligation to file for insolvency from corporate to insolvency law. See Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Missbräuchen (MoMiG) pp 105–108, http://www.gmbhr.de/heft/12_07/MoMiG_RegE_230507.pdf (accesed 5 March 2017).

  126. Ringe (2017), p 278. According to the author, traffic rules of German law in the sense of Kornhaas include, inter alia, Existenzvernichtungshaftung, § 64 sentence 1 GmbHG, § 64 sentence 1 and 3 GmbHG, and § 15a section 4 InsO in conjunction with § 823 section 2 BGB.

  127. Schall (2015), pp 294–295.

  128. Eidenmüller (2006a), pp 479–481.

  129. Ungan (2005), p 374.

  130. ECJ, Case C-208/00 Überseering, ECLI:EU:C:2002:632, para. 92.

  131. Eidenmüller (2006a), pp 487–489; Rehm (2010), pp 11–12; Schillig (2007a), p 307.

  132. Vallender (2006), pp 453–454.

  133. Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) [2007] OJ L199/40.

  134. Eidenmüller (2006a), pp 490–491.

  135. Schillig (2007b), pp 488–489.

  136. Hellwig (2013), p 230.

  137. Ringe (2016).

  138. Eidenmüller (2006a), pp 484–485.

  139. Eidenmüller (2006b), p 478.

  140. Schall (2005), pp 1536–1537. The following example of such a result was also presented in Armour et al. (2017), p 10: ‘If the laws of the Member State of incorporation (“State A”) apply creditor protection measures that are categorized as company law, whereas the Member State in which the COMI is located (“State B”) applies measures categorized as insolvency law, creditors may enjoy two tiers of protection, through the application of the company law of State A and the insolvency law of State B. However, if the allocation were reversed, such that State A governed creditor protection through insolvency law and State B through company law, it seems at least arguable that neither set of measures might apply.’.

  141. Eidenmüller (2006b), p 484.

  142. Eidenmüller (2006b), p 478.

  143. This is true not only for the German but also for e.g. the Polish or Czech legal system.

  144. See e.g. Eidenmüller (2016), p 1.

  145. Eidenmüller (2009), p 4.

  146. An example is the case of insolvency in Schefenacker, where after reincorporation in England the debtor filed for insolvency. The reincorporation was backed by financial creditors because of the higher predictability of English insolvency law as well as the fact that about 90% of the creditors were located in the UK or the US. Furthermore, English insolvency law is seen as more favorable to both the debtor and its creditors. See Ringe (2009), p 89.

  147. Eidenmüller (2009), p 6.

  148. ECJ, Case C-1/04 Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber, ECLI:EU:C:2006:39.

  149. ECJ, Case C-1/04 Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber, ECLI:EU:C:2006:39, para. 26.

References

  • Arabasz J (2016) Rozhodnuti Kornhaas vs Dithmar—pozor na dalsi rizika pro cleny statutarnich organu [Judgment Kornhaas vs Dithmar – be careful of further risks for members of company bodies]. http://tablet.epravo.cz/4-2016/35_tema-vydani-rozhodnuti-kornhaas-vs-dithmar-pozor-na-dalsi-rizika-pro-cleny-statutarnich-organu. Accessed 3 Mar 2017

  • Armour J et al (2017) Brexit and corporate citizenship. European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)—Law working paper no 340/2017. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2897419. Accessed 7 Dec 2018

  • Braun R, Eidenmüller H, Engert A, Hornuf L (2013) Unternehmensgründungen unter dem Einfluss des Wettbewerbs der Gesellschaftsrechte. Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht 177:131–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Casper M (2008) Liability of the managing director and the shareholder in the GmbH (private limited company) in crisis. Ger Law J 9:1125–1140

    Google Scholar 

  • Eidenmüller H (2006a) Gesellschaftsstatut und Insolvenzstatut. RabelsZ 70:474–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Eidenmüller H (2006b) Wettbewerb der Insolvenzrechte? Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht 35(1):467–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Eidenmüller H (2009) Abuse of law in the context of European insolvency law. Eur Co Financ Law Rev 6(1):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Eidenmüller H (2016) Comparative corporate insolvency law. European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)—Law working paper no 319

  • Engert A (2006) Life without legal capital: lessons from American law. Working paper. https://ssrn.com/abstract=882842. Accessed 7 Feb 2019

  • Goette W (2005) Wo steht der BGH nach ‘Centros’ und ‘Inspire Art’. Deutsches Steuerrecht 43(5):197–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann H, Kraakman R (2000) The essential role of organizational law. Yale Law J 110:387–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellwig H-J (2013) Das deutsche Gesellschaftsrecht und Europa—Ein Appell zu mehr Offenheit und Engagement. Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht 42(2):216–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersting C, Schindler CP (2003) The ECJ’s Inspire Art decision of 30 September 2003 and its effects on practice. Ger Law J 4(12):1277–1291

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan A (2015) Corporate mobility, market access and the internal market. Eur Law Rev 40(3):371–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindler P (2015) Internationales Privatrecht—Allgemeiner Teil. In: Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch: BGB, Band 11: Internationales Privatrecht II, Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (Art. 25–248): IPR II, IntWR, Art. 25–248, EGBGB. C.H. Beck, Munich, pp 3–570

  • Kindler P (2016) Insolvenzrecht als Tätigkeitsausübungsregel—Die sachliche Reichweite der Niederlassungsfreiheit nach dem ‘Kornhaas’-Urteil des Gerichtshofes. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 27(4):136–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindemanns G (2016) Real seat by any other name would smell as sweet? https://corporatefinancelab.org/2016/10/19/real-seat-by-any-other-name-would-smell-as-sweet/. Accessed 3 Mar 2017

  • Lowe R, Coverdale H (2015) CJEU paves the way for a director of an English company to be found liable to make payments under German law where the company is placed into insolvency proceedings in Germany. http://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2015/12/cjeu-paves-the-way-for-a-director-of-an-english-company-to-be-found-liable-to-make-payments-under-german-law-where-the-company-is-placed-into-insolvency-proceedings-in-germany. Accessed 3 Mar 2017

  • Lutter M, Banerjea NR (2003) Die Haftung wegen Existenzvernichtung. Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht 43(3):402–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Freienfels W (1957) Zur Lehre vom sogenannten ‘Durchgriff’ bei juristischen Personen im Privatrecht. Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 156:522–543

    Google Scholar 

  • Napierała J (2017) Lex fori concursus jako prawo właściwe dla roszczenia o zwrot płatności dokonanych przez dyrektora spółki zagranicznej w czasie niewypłacalności spółki—wykładnia art. 4 ust. 1 rozporządzenia nr 1346/2000 w wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości z 10.12.2015 r. w sprawie C-594/14 Kornhaas [Lex fori concursus as the applicable law for claims for reimbursement of payments made by the director of a foreign company after the company became insolvent: interpretation of Art. 4(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 in the Court of Justice judgment of 10 December 2015 in Case C-594/14, Kornhaas]. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 9:44–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Opalski A (2012) Problematyka pominięcia prawnej odrębności spółek kapitałowych [The problem of disregarding the corporate identity of companies]. Przegląd Prawa Handlowego 8:10–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson CW (2018) Piercing the corporate veil by tort creditors. J Bus Technol Law 13(1):63–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehm GM (2010) Private Haftung der Gesellschafter einer LLP mit Verwaltungssitz in Deutschland. Betriebs-Berater Special 3/2010: Die Englische LLP—Eine Rechtsform für deutsche Anwaltskanzleien Broschüre

  • Riedemann S (2007) Artikel 4—Anwendbares Recht. In: Pannen K (ed) Europaische Insolvenzverordnung. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 207–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringe W-G (2009) Strategic insolvency migration and community law. In: Ringe W-G et al (eds) Current issues in European financial and insolvency law. Perspectives from France and the UK. Bloomsbury, London, pp 71–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringe W-G (2016) Kornhaas and the limits of corporate establishment. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2016/05/kornhaas-and-limits-corporate-establishment. Accessed 25 Feb 2018

  • Ringe W-G (2017) Kornhaas and the challenge of applying Keck in establishment. Eur Law Rev Issue 42(2):270–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Röhricht V (2005) Insolvenzrechtliche Aspekte im Gesellschaftsrecht. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 26:505–516

    Google Scholar 

  • Romanowski M (2014a) Czy spółka może być nadczłowiekiem lub przynajmniej dronem—czyli o skłonnościach do przypisywania interesowi spółki pozoru rzeczywistości [Can the company be a superhuman or at least a drone—that is, tendencies to assume the interests of the company are real]. Monit Prawa Handlowego 2:45–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Romanowski M (2014b) Kapitał zakładowy—ani to Graal, ani święty [Share capital—neither Grail nor Saint]. Monit Prawa Handlowego 3:40–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer C (2015) Gesellschaftsrecht. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Schall A (2005) UK limited company abroad—How foreign creditors are protected after Inspire Art (including a comparison of UK and German creditor protection rules). Eur Bus Law Rev 16:1534–1554

    Google Scholar 

  • Schall A (2015) The forthcoming ECJ decision of the Kornhaas case (C-594/14)—the final chapter of the European traveller’s tales? Eur Co Financ Law Rev 12(2):280–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Schall A (2016) Das Kornhaas-Urteil gibt grünes Licht für die Anwendung des § 64 GmbHG auf eine Limited mit Sitz in Deutschland—Alles klar dank EuGH! Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 7:289–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Schillig M (2007a) Existenzvernichtungshaftung und englische Limited—das BGH-Urteil vom 16.7.2007. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 106:299–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Schillig M (2007b) Existenzvernichtungshaftung und englische Limited—das BGH-Urteil vom 16.7.2007 Ergänzung zu ZVglRWiss 106 (2007) 299–334. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 106:484–489

    Google Scholar 

  • Serick R (1955) Rechtsform und Realität juristischer Person. Mohr, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffek F (2009) Der subjektive Tatbestand der Gesellschafterhaftung im Recht der GmbH—zugleich ein Beitrag zum Haftungsdurchgriff. JuristenZeitung 64(2):77–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffek F (2011) Gläubigerschutz in der Kapitalgesellschaft. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Stones K (2015) CJEU applies onerous German law provisions to MDs of English company—Kornhaas v Thomas Dithmar. http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/randi/cjeu-applies-onerous-german-law-provisions-to-mds-of-english-company/. Accessed 3 Mar 2017

  • Szydło M (2007) Krajowe prawo spółek a swoboda przedsiębiorczości [National company law and the freedom of establishment]. LexisNexis, Warsaw

    Google Scholar 

  • Szydło M (2017) Directors’ duties and liability in insolvency and the freedom of establishment of companies after Kornhaas. Common Mark Law Rev 54(6):1853–1866

    Google Scholar 

  • Targosz T (2005) Nadużycie osobowości prawnej [Abuse of legal personality]. Kantor Wydawniczy Zakamycze, Warsaw

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer P (2002) Anmerkungen zum Urteil des BGH v. 24.06.2002—II ZR 300/00. Juristische Zeitschrift 21:1049–1052

    Google Scholar 

  • Ungan P (2005) Gläubigerschutz nach dem EuGH-Urteil in ‘Inspire Art’—Möglichkeiten einer Sonderanknüpfung für die Durchgriffshaftung in der Insolvenz. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 104(3):355–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallender H (2006) Die Insolvenz von Scheinauslandsgesellschaften. Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht 35(3/4):425–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Virgos M, Garcimartin F (2004) The European insolvency regulation: law and practice. Wolters Kluwer, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Wansleben T (2016) Die feine Linie zwischen Gesellschafts- und Insolvenzstatut im Unionsrecht—EuGH-Urteil ‘Kornhaas’. Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht 2:72–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessels B (2015) CJEU 10 December 2015, C-594/14 (Kornhaas v Dithmar). http://bobwessels.nl/2015/12/2015-12-doc11-cjeu-10-december-2015-c-59414-kornhaas-v-dithmar/. Accessed 3 Mar 2017

  • Wiedemann H (1980) Gesellschaftsrecht. Ein Lehrbuch des Unternehmens- und Verbandsrechts. Band I. Grundlagen. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Włodyka S (2002) Prawo spółek handlowych. Tom 2, System Prawa Handlowego [Commercial companies law. Volume 2, Commercial law system]. C.H. Beck, Warsaw

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SDZLEGAL Schindhelm, Wrocław, Poland

    Aleksandra Krawczyk-Giehsmann

Authors
  1. Aleksandra Krawczyk-Giehsmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aleksandra Krawczyk-Giehsmann.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krawczyk-Giehsmann, A. Shareholders’ Liability for Ruining a Company in Light of the CJEU’s Judgment in Kornhaas. Eur Bus Org Law Rev 21, 475–504 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-019-00142-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-019-00142-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation