No piercing the corporate veil in the case of insolvent Kolping Training Sachsen eV
The applicant, a closed real estate funds, acquired in 1994 by a subsidiary of the nonprofit Kolping Training Sachsen eV (eV KBS), a 40-year ground lease on a nearby Saxony, built with a lock property. After the conversion of the existing palace complex in a training, education and training center, the applicant, the property in October 1999 compared monthly lease payments of leased about 80,000 € to 19.75 years eV to the KBS. This had to be "Holding club" designed to last more than 25 subsidiaries and subsidiary companies into one of the largest government-funded support to vocational training in Saxony and was involved in three other major projects, with monthly rental charges of over 240,000 €. In December 2000 it had over the assets of the KBS eV insolvency proceedings are opened. 
The applicant against the mourning under various legal aspects of their claims because of insolvency of the Association by the KBS resulting financial loss. The defendants - as a legal and unincorporated associations organized - members of the active at various local levels Kolping Society. According to the applicant to the organized as unincorporated associations complain to 1), 3) and 5) given the group-like structure of the Kolping organizations are regarded as de facto members of the KBS eV, together with their respective legal capacity sponsor agency - Liable for the liabilities - the defendant to 2), 4) and 6). The complaint was on appeal only in respect of the defendant to 3-6 in part by the consideration of the Higher Regional Court of success that the (actual) members of a personalistic structured the association, which is operated by the so-called secondary function privilege also economically significant, liable for abuse of the legal form of accessory for all club debts, if they - are aware of the economic activity and areas that do not stop - as here. The called on all parties Second Civil Division of the Federal Court, the revision of the applicant refused, revoked, however, the conviction of the defendant to 3-6 and dismissed the action against this defendant.
The Federal Court has ruled that the - the Court of Appeal adopted - accessory liability of the defendant to 3-6 as the (actual) members of the KBS eV for the club owed to the applicant by way of piercing the corporate veil because of legal form abuse with applicable statutory law (§ § 21 ff, 43, paragraph 2 BGB) is not in compliance.
liability is settled supreme court for the liabilities of a registered association of this principle, only himself and not standing behind him, the club members. An opening of this separation principle is only exceptionally permissible if the use of the legal differences between the legal entity and the individuals behind it is quite unfair (references omitted 54, 222, 224, 78, 318, 333). The existence of such an abuse has been able to have the Court of Appeal not evident. Neither existed on the part of the KBS eV from the start about credit problems that the applicant had been concealed in bad faith, still quite unfair wealth shifts found in the Group or a similar use of corporate structures to the detriment of creditors instead of, let alone were evidence of an extent that the defendant cause attributable to 3-6. Also, the nature and extent of the economic activity of the KBS eV were as such in the form of controlling large construction projects to outsiders - and particularly the applicant as a customer and later lessor regarding any of these major projects - easily recognizable. does not justify that - the defendant to 3-6 unpaid by the applicant - inaction against the major economic activity of the KBS eV and therein lies exceeding the secondary function privilege - they may have been significant - the Court of Appeal postulated liability penetration of the creditors in this (factual) club members because of legal form abuse. It is contrary to that law has taken to prevent such behavior measures, a loophole is not: The penalty for such an improper business activities of the association, the law provides only the official cancellation proceedings under § § 159, 142 FGG or official deprivation of legal capacity pursuant to § 43 paragraph 2 BGB. Only by such an act is the legal capacity of the association is terminated and this is not legally responsible for an economic association, for its liabilities to members - are personally liable - only from that point on, (§ 54 BGB). Die gesetzlichen Sanktionen der Amtslöschung gemäß §§ 159, 142 FGG und der behördlichen Entziehung der Rechtsfähigkeit nach § 43 Abs. 2 BGB sowie der durch sie bewirkte mittelbare Zwang zur Auflösung oder Umwandlung des das Nebenzweckprivileg überschreitenden Idealvereins sind nach derzeitiger Gesetzeslage grundsätzlich - d.h., soweit nicht ausnahmsweise eine, hier allerdings nicht vorliegende, rechtsmissbräuchliche Ausnutzung des Trennungsprinzips durch die Vereinsmitglieder im oben beschriebenen Sinne hinzukommt - zum Schutz des Rechtsverkehrs ausreichend.
Angesichts dieser eindeutigen Gesetzeslage ist für den vom Berufungsgericht unternommenen Versuch, im Wege einer Rechtsfortbildung die Duldung bzw. Nichtverhinderung einer Überschreitung des Nebenzweckprivilegs durch Vereinsmitglieder zusätzlich mit der Sanktion ihrer (rückwirkenden) persönlichen Haftung zu belegen, schon wegen Fehlens einer - regelungsbedürftigen - Gesetzeslücke kein Raum. Überdies trifft die Ausgangsthese des Berufungsgerichts, es entspreche "allgemeinen korporationsrechtlichen Grundsätzen, dass die Mitglieder bzw. Gesellschafter einer Körperschaft grundlegenden strukturellen Fehlentwicklungen durch nachhaltige Maßnahmen entgegenzutreten haben und sie bei der Verletzung einer solchen Pflicht einer persönlichen Haftung unterworfen" sind, nicht zu; such a break-through event is the current legal alien.
Judgement of 10 December 2007 - II ZR 239/05
LG Dresden - 10 O 5117/02 - Decision 6.4.2004
OLG Dresen - 2 U 897/04 - decision of 9.8.2005
Karlsruhe, 10 December 2007
0 comments:
Post a Comment