Abstract
It is hardly possible to judge the merits of the German corporate governance system without also having a basic knowledge of German business or enterprise law1 and without analysing it within its wider cultural context2 and linguistic background.3 Whereas business law or enterprise law refer to all legal aspects pertaining to businesses or enterprises, the focus of this book is on corporate governance in context of primarily large companies or corporations. A distinctive feature of German companies or corporations is the particular relationship amongst the various corporate organs and the unique synthesis between corporations law and labour law. Understanding this synthesis is fundamental when the merits of the English and American one-tier system and the German two-tier system (the management board and the supervisory board) with employee participation are analysed and compared.4 These aspects have often been neglected in the academic literature attempting to analyse the German corporate governance system from a traditional Anglo-American perspective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
In Germany, phrases like company law, corporate law and corporations law have different meanings and are often associated with specific political or academic theories. See and compare, for example, Thomas Raiser, ‘The Theory of Enterprise Law in the Federal Republic of Germany’ [1988] AJCL 111, 122 ff; Gunter Teubner, ‘Enterprise Corporation: New Industrial Policy and the “Essence” of the Legal Person’ [1988] AJCL 130 ff. For the purposes of this book these terms will be used interchangeably.
See Bernhard Großfeld, ‘Comparative Law as a Comprehensive Approach’ (2000) 1 Richmond J of Global L and Bus 1; Bernhard Großfeld, Core Questions of Comparative Law (Carolina Academic Press, Durham NC 2004).
Bernhard Großfeld, ‘Corporatists and Languages’ in Legrand and Munday (eds) Comparative Legal Studies: Traditions and Transitions (OUP, Oxford 2003) 154.
For a general overview see Bernhard Großfeld, ‘Management and Control of Marketable Share Companies’ in International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law (Mohr and Siebeck Verlag, Tuebingen 1973); AR Oquendo, ‘Breaking on Through to the Other Side: Understanding Continental European Corporate Governance’ (2001) 22 U Pennsylvania J of Intl Eco L 975.
See in particular Rudolf Wiethölter, Interessen und Organisation der Aktiengesellschaft im Amerikanischen und Deutschen Recht (CF Müller Verlag, Karlsruhe 1961) 272 ff; Bernhard Großfeld, Aktiengesellschaft, Unternehmenskonzentration und Kleinaktionär (Mohr and Siebeck Verlag, Tuebingen 1968) 113 ff; Friedrich Kübler, Gesellschaftsrecht (5th edn CF Müller Verlag, Heidelberg 1998) 5 ff; Bernhard Großfeld and Ulrich Irriger, ‘Intertemporales Unternehmensrecht’ (1988) 43 JZ 531.
For purposes of this book, the term codetermination (Mitbestimmung) will be used in its legal context, indicating the codetermination of employees in terms of various statutory provisions— see Chapter 5 for a closer description of the different ways in which the term codetermination is used. The term Mitbestimmung is also sometimes used in more general terms—see Christene Windbichler, ‘Grenzen der Mitbestimmung in einer markwirtschaftlichen Ordnung’ [1991] ZfA 35. See generally Raiser (n 1) 116 ff; Detlev F Vagts, ‘Reforming the “Modern” Corporation: Perspectives from the German’ [1966] Harvard L Rev 23, 26 ff.
Raiser (n 1) 111, 113.
Ibid 114.
See especially the comprehensive exposition by Dieter Reuter, ‘Der Einfluß der Mitbestimmung auf das Gesellschafts—und Arbeitsrecht’ [1979] AcP 509–566.
Ibid 409–517.
Raiser (n 1) 118, 122 ff.
See especially Großfeld (n 5) 5 ff; Bernhard Großfeld and Werner Ebke, ‘Probleme der Unternehmensverfassung in rechtshistorisher und rechtsvergleichender Sicht (I)’ (1977) 22 AG 59, 62 ff. See also Klaus-Peter Martens, ‘Das Bundesverfassungsgericht und das Gesellschaftsrecht’ (1979) 8 ZGR 493, 508–9.
Eckard Rehbinder, ‘Das Mitbestimmungsurteil des Bundesverfassungsgerights aus unternehmensrechlicher Sicht’ (1979) 8 ZGR 471, 478, 480–81; Kübler (n 5) 163 ff.
Bernhard Großfeld, ‘Global Accounting: Where Internet Meets Geography’ (2000) 48 Am J Comp L 261; Bernhard Großfeld, ‘Comparative Corporate Governance: Generally Accepted Accounting Principles v International Accounting Standards?’ (2003) 28 North Carolina J of Intl L and Com Reg 847; Bernhard Großfeld, ‘Lawyers and Accountants: A Semiotic Competition’ (2001) 36 Wake Forest L Rev 167.
Bernhard Großfeld, ‘Changing Concepts of Rules: Global Corporate Assessment’ (2002) 8 L and Bus Rev of the Americas 341.
Bernhard Großfeld, ‘Global Valuation: Geography and Semiotics’ (2002) 55 SMU L Rev 197; Bernhard Großfeld, ‘Global Financial Statements/Local Enterprise Valuation’ (2004) 29 J of Corp L 338.
B Großfeld and U Lehmann, ‘Management Structures and Worker’s Codetermination in Germany with European Perspectives’ [1994] Corporate Law Development Series 41, 43. See also Kübler (n 5) 1; Ulrich Eisenhardt, Gesellschaftsrecht (6th edn CH Beck Verlag, Munich 1994) 2.
This was in accordance with the general principle of the German law of corporations that large public corporations should be regulated in detail in a separate act—see Großfeld and Lehmann U Lehmann, ‘Management Structures and Worker’s Codetermination in Germany with European Perspectives’ [1994] Corporate Law Development Series (n 17) 42; Großfeld and Ebke (n 12) 59 ff; Kübler (n 5) 4. For recent developments pertaining to smaller AGs, see Marcus Lutter, ‘Das neue Gesetz für kleine Aktiengesellschaften und zur Deregulierung des Aktienrecht’ (1994) 39 AG 429 ff.
Eisenhardt (n 17) 3.
See in particular Peter Hanau, ‘Einführung’ in Mitbestimmungsgesetze in den Unternehmen mit alle Wahlordnungen (4th edn Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich 1991) VII–XX.
Kübler (n 5) 13. With regard to the articles of incorporation (Satzung), see Hans-Joachim Mertens ‘Zuständigkeiten des mitbestimmenten Aufsichtsrats’ (1977) 6 ZGR 271, 283–88 and Hans-Joachim Mertens’ satzungs—und Organisationsautonomie im Aktien— und Konzernrecht’ (1994) 23 ZGR 426, 438–40; Barbara Grunewald, ‘Die Auslegung von Gesellschaftsverträgen und Satzungen’ (1995) 24 ZGR 68, 84–5.
Vagts (n 6) 33.
On the basic forms of German enterprises, see Theodor Baums, ‘Corporate Governance in Germany: The Role of the Banks’ [1992] AJCL 503. For an interesting exposition of the legal rules applicable to undertakings not regulated by statutory provisions in Germany, see Großfeld and Irriger (n 5) 531 ff.
See Hannes Schneider and Martin Heidenhain, The German Stock Corporations Act (2nd edn CH Beck Verlag, Munich 2000); Martin Peltzer and Anthony G Hickinbotham, German Stock Corporation Act and the Co-Determination Act: German-English Text with an Introduction in English (OVS Otto Schmidt Verlag, Cologne 1999).
See WR Scott, The General Development of the Joint-stock System to 1720 (The University Press, Cambridge 1912).
Charles Wordsworth, The Law of Mining, Banking, Insurance and General Joint Stock Companies Not Requiring Express Authority of Parliament (6th edn WG Benning and Co, London 1854); Nathaniel Lindley, A Treatise on the Law of Partnership, Including its Application to Joint-stock and other Companies (William Maxwell, London 1860); Francis William Clark, A Treatise on the Law of Partnership and Joint Stock Companies according to the Law of Scotland (T & T Clark, Edinburgh 1866); Henry Thring, The Law and Practice of Joint-stock Public Companies (2nd edn Stevens & Sons, London 1868); Charles Fiish Beach, Company Law: Commentaries on the Law of Private Corporations whether with or without Capital Stock, also of Joint-stock Companies (TH Flood & Co, Chicago 1891); CEH Chadwyck Healy, Percy F Wheeler and Charles Burney, A Treatise on the Law and Practice relating to Joint Stock Companies under the Acts of 1862–1890 (3rd edn Sweet and Maxwell, London 1894).
See Oliver Niedostadek, The Proprietary Company—das Recht der Australischen Private Company (LIT Verlag, Muenster 2004).
See, for instance as far as South Africa is concerned, Nico Olbrisch, Die südafrikanische close corporation und ihre strukturellen Unterschiede zur deutschen GmbH, Münsteraner Studien zur Rechtsvergleichung (Band 23) (LIT Verlag, Muenster 1997); Nico Olbrisch and Jean J du Plessis,’ some Structural Differences Between the South African Close Corporation and the German GmbH’ [1997] TSAR 315 ff.
Kübler (n 5) 161.
Ibid.
Deutsches Aktieninstitut (DAI), DAI-Factbook 2006.
Klaus J Hopt, ‘Gemeinsame Grundsätze der Corporate Governance in Europa?’ (2000) 29 ZGR 779; Udo Kornblum, ‘Bundesweite Rechtstatsachen zum Unternehmens-und Gesellschaftsrecht’ [2007] GmbHR 28–39. It is interesting to note that only about 453 000 GmbHs were considered to be actively trading (gathered from the fact that they are paying turnover tax) — Statistisches Bundesamt, Umsatzsteuerstatistik 2004.
Werner Ebke, ‘The European Conflict-of-Corporate-Laws Revolution: Überseering, Inspire Art and Beyond’ [2005] The International Lawyer 39; Christian Kersting and Clemens Philipp Schindler, ‘Inspire Art Decision of Sept 2003 and its Effects on Practice’ (2003) 4 German L J (Electronic Journal) No 12.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
du Plessis, J., Großfeld, B. (2007). An Overview of German Business or Enterprise Law. In: German Corporate Governance in International and European Context. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71187-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71187-2_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-71186-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-71187-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)