Aluminium Blades Studs For Rugby

Publikums-KG

BGH 06.07.2010, II ZR 210/09

Advisory
a public-KG
can be used as a special representative as defined in § § 46 GmbHG No. 8, 147 paragraph 2 sentence 1 AktG be ordered
Partners of a partnership may for the purpose of enforcement of claims against their representative organs being in appropriate application of § § 46 No. 8 Halbs. 2 GmbHG, 147 paragraph 2 sentence 1 AktG appoint a special representative. As such a special representative of the Advisory Board may be appointed a public limited partnership.

The facts:
The applicants, three limited partnerships require the defendant to their common partner, the refund of commission payments. Subject matter of the companies (public companies with a large number of investors) is the construction, acquisition and operations and the sale of ships. They were established with identical social contracts from July 1992 by the R-GmbH as the sole general partner. The Gründungskomplementärin was converted in October 2000 in the defendant.

In February 2005, the defendant in the name and on behalf of the applicants for 2005 each, a "Commission Agreement" with the company from O-GmbH. This should provide a variety of activities for the shipping company. As a fee for these activities, the O-GmbH month. an "address commission" amounting to 1.0 percent of gross freight promised and provided to the applicants into account. An identical agreement was concluded for the year 2006.

The applicants are now demanding - in each case represented by its Advisory Board - refund of money in 2005 and 2006 commissions. They believe that the defendant had breached its obligation to independently exercise the management. The representation power of the councils is clear from their particular, the supervisory board of a public company approximated function in the public-KG in conjunction with the relevant shareholder resolutions. The defendant denies, however, the Vertretungsbefugnis der Beiräte.

LG und OLG gaben der Klage vollumfänglich statt. Der BGH wies darauf hin, dass er beabsichtigt, die vom OLG zugelassene Revision der Beklagten durch Beschluss gem. § 552 a ZPO zurückzuweisen.

Die Gründe: Die vom OLG der Zulassung der Revision zugrunde gelegte Frage, ob bei einer Publikums-Kommanditgesellschaft analog § 112 AktG der gewählte Beirat die Gesellschaft in einer Klage gegen den Geschäftsführer gerichtlich vertreten kann, ist nicht entscheidungserheblich.

Die Beiräte der Klägerinnen sind jeweils wirksam von den Gesellschafterversammlungen mit der Prozessführung gegen die Beklagte beauftragt und bevollmächtigt worden. For this reason alone could the councils of the meaning of § 51 para 1 CCP process-disabled applicants represented in the process. On a legal representative authorizing analogous to § 112 AktG, it does not matter. Partner in a partnership may apply to the enforcement of claims against their representative organs being in appropriate application of § § 46 No. 8 Halbs. 2 GmbHG, 147 paragraph 2 sentence 1 AktG appoint a special representative. Here are all the conditions for effective appointment of the Advisory Councils as Special Counsel to the active case against the defendant.
The applicants were not represented by the general partners. The defendant ist als verklagte Komplementärin wegen des Verbots eines Insichprozesses von der organschaftlichen Prozessvertretung gegen sich selbst ausgeschlossen. Die Klägerinnen konnten auch nicht jeweils durch die zweite persönlich haftende Gesellschafterin vertreten werden. Allerdings führt das Ausscheiden eines von zwei Komplementären grundsätzlich dazu, dass der verbleibende Komplementär vertretungsberechtigt ist, und zwar selbst dann, wenn beide nach dem Gesellschaftsvertrag nur gesamtvertretungsberechtigt waren. Dies kann aber im Streitfall nicht gelten.
Es kann nicht erwartet werden, dass derjenige Ansprüche verfolgt, der selbst Gefahr läuft, dass in dem entsprechenden Verfahren etwaige eigene Versäumnisse oder Versäumnisse of the person liable cooperative or other business people are revealed. already justify a potential conflict of interest regarding the admissibility of his appointment, despite the presence of a second general partner, this is certainly taking into account the special circumstances of the case: From the submitted file drawers to find that managing the second partner is always the same, also to represent the legitimate interests- Managing general partner of the defendant. Thus the same conflict of interest is also in the view before the second general partner.

In Others are also other facilities for effective appointment of the advisory boards, where as a representative of the applicants.