Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

German Corporate Governance in International and European Context pp 401–430Cite as

Legal Requirements for the Proper Appraisal of Companies: A Substantive Civil-Procedural Concept

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

The valuation of a company (share), the appraisal of businesses as an object of a legal relationship is a legal act. Therefore, the materially substantial concept of the valuation of companies is shaped by civil procedural law. The valuation process with its contents and methodology as well as the result as a whole is subject to the control of judges, i.e. it is embedded in civil procedure law (civil law). That comprises all three time levels on which the company and its circumstances work in a valuation-relevant way. We will elaborate this here in detail. What is decisive—with the idea of justice under the rule of law—is the imperative of truth directed towards facts: What other measure could there be?

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    1833, here: Hamburg edition (14th ed 2005) volume XII, 318.

  2. 2.

    See above Chap. 7. On reform and perspectives Luttermann (2017).

  3. 3.

    Fundamental: Claus Luttermann in Petersen et al. (2017), pp. 157–176 (chap. A.7.) and 609–637 (chap. D.9.) with further references.

  4. 4.

    Großfeld et al. (2016). See also Fleischer and Hüttemann (2015); Matschke and Brösel (2013). Cf. e.g. Koller et al. (2015).

  5. 5.

    See in Sects. 7.5, 7.8 and below in Chap. 9. Arthur Levitt, The ‘Numbers Game’, 28.9.1998 (<www.sec.gov>, speech 220). Jones (2011).

  6. 6.

    Basics in Luttermann (2015a), pp. 31–48. Luttermann (2012), pp. 305–313.

  7. 7.

    Alternatively determining two layouts set out in Annexes III and IV.

  8. 8.

    Cf. Luttermann (2010c), pp. 1–4.

  9. 9.

    Smith (1790); this is what his second better-known work is based on, The Wealth of Nations, 1776. Adam Smith was unfortunately not able to finish a long-planned book (third main work) on the theory of jurisprudence (an account of the general principles of law and government).

  10. 10.

    Dazu U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Investigations: Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Collapse (13.4.2011). Luttermann (2008b), pp. 737–743.

  11. 11.

    See below Sect. 8.5 and in Sects. 7.3, 7.5 and 7.9.2.

  12. 12.

    55. recital, Directive 2013/34/EU on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, 19–76.

  13. 13.

    See already in detail in Sects. 7.3.4 and 7.9.2.

  14. 14.

    ECJ, 3 October 2013 (C-322/12—Gimle SA), paras 30, 32, ZIP 2014, 166 on Article 31(1)(c) Directive 78/660/EEC. See on this also below in Sect. 8.5.4.

  15. 15.

    Impressively Huan-Chang (1911).

  16. 16.

    Cf. Luttermann (2011a), pp. 214, 217 (‘Barbarische Politik’). See also Sects. 8.7 and 9.7.

  17. 17.

    See below Sect. 9.6.1. Basic Luttermann (2009), pp. 1–11.

  18. 18.

    Luttermann (2000), pp. 459–469.

  19. 19.

    Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), 20.7.2009 (II ZR 273/07), BGHZ 182, 103; Luttermann (2008a), pp. 833–838. BGH, 16.7.2007 (II ZR 3/04—Trihotel), BGHZ 173, 246; BGH, 24.7.2012 (II ZR 177/11), NJW 2012, 3231.

  20. 20.

    Luttermann and Geißler (2012), pp. 55–62.

  21. 21.

    BGH, 23.4.2012 (II ZR 252/10), BGHZ 193, 96 (Leitsatz).

  22. 22.

    Claus Luttermann (above footnote 6).

  23. 23.

    BGH, 8.10.2013 (II ZB 26/12—Frosta), NJW 2014, 146, following the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG), 11.7.2012 (1 BvR 3142/07, 1569/08—MVS Zeppelin AG and Lindner KGaA). A different stance is still taken by the BGH, 25.11.2002 (II ZR 133/01—Macrotron), BGHZ 153, 47 (NJW 2003, 1032), and BGH, 28.6.2011 (II ZB 2/10), ZIP 2011, 1708; on this Luttermann (2011b), p. 619.

  24. 24.

    Explicating reasoning on the Gesetz zur Umsetzung der geänderten Transparenzrichtlinie (2013/50/EU), Bundestags-Drucksache 18/6220 (30.9.2015), 83–86.

  25. 25.

    See in the following under Sect. 8.4.

  26. 26.

    Of 16.10.1934, as amended on 2.11.2015, BGBl I 1834.

  27. 27.

    Luttermann (2015b), pp. 274–282.

  28. 28.

    See esp. Sect. 7.5.1 and Chap. 9.

  29. 29.

    See BVerfG, 19.10.1993 (1 BvR 1905/02), BVerfGE 89, 214; BGH, 16.6.2009 (XI ZR 539/07), NJW 2009, 2671.

  30. 30.

    See BGH, 7.5.2015 (IX ZB 75/14), ZIP 2015, 1346.

  31. 31.

    Cf. Großfeld and Luttermann (2005) para 426 (HGB/Steuerrecht), paras 942–949 (IFRS).

  32. 32.

    Please note also esp. Sects. 9.6.2 (gold standard), 7.4.6 (expectation gaps) and 7.4.6 (guideline for valuation).

  33. 33.

    Christine M. Korsgaard in Raz (2008), p. 85.

  34. 34.

    Cf. OLG Nürnberg, 20.12.2012 (12 U 49/13), ZIP 2014, 171 (Russian-Roulette-Clause). OLG Koblenz, 20.2.2009 (10 U 57/05: <www.mjv.rlp.de>).

  35. 35.

    E.g., OLG Frankfurt am Main, 29.1.2016 (21 W 70/15; see: <www.lareda.hessen.de>), and OLG Stuttgart, 5.11.2014 (20 W 4/12), <openJur 2014, 457> (S 305 AktG: <www.openjur.de>). OLG Karlsruhe, 22.6.2015 (12a W 5/15), ZIP 2015, 1874 (S 327b AktG).

  36. 36.

    OLG Karlsruhe, 30.9.2015 (7 AktG 1/15), <openJur 2015, 19315>. BGH, 17.9.2014 (IX ZB 26/14), ZIP 2014, 2040.

  37. 37.

    BGH 24.6.2014 (VI ZR 347/12), <lexetius.com/2014,2880>.

  38. 38.

    Spruchverfahrensgesetz of 12.6.2003, as amended on 23.7.2013, BGBl I 2586.

  39. 39.

    Cf.. e.g., BGH, 19.4.2011 (II ZR 244/09), NZG 2011, 780, and BGH, 19.4.2011 (II ZR 237/09), NZG 2011, 701.

  40. 40.

    Also S 320b(1)(4) AktG. Luttermann (2001), pp. 869–872. Cf. according to tax law Luttermann (2010b), pp. 193–200.

  41. 41.

    BVerfG, 20.12.2010 (1 BvR 2323/07), ZIP 2011, 170; confirmed also by: BVerfG, 24.5.2012 (1 BvR 3221/10), ZIP 2012, 3020.

  42. 42.

    Of 30.3.1967 (II ZR 141/64), AG 1967, 264.

  43. 43.

    Earlier evidence in Hüffer (1997) S 305, para 19; cf. critically already Claus Luttermann on OLG Celle (9 W 128/97), EWiR 1998, 821, and on OLG Düsseldorf (19 W 3/93 AktE), EWiR 1998, 677.

  44. 44.

    Emmerich and Sonnenschein (1997), p. 293; Ammon (1998), p. 121. See for practical guidance below Sect. 8.6.

  45. 45.

    BVerfG, 27.4.1999 (1 BvR 1613/94), BVerfGE 100, 289, 308: Luttermann (1999b), pp. 45–52. See in more detail on this procedure Heigel (2007), p. 73.

  46. 46.

    See previous footnote. Cf. BVerfG, 7.8.1962 (1 BvL 16/60), BVerfGE 14, 263, 283.

  47. 47.

    BVerfG, 5.12.2012 (1 BvR 1577/11—Wella AG), <openJur 2013, 41952> (ZIP 2013, 260: III.1.a).

  48. 48.

    BGH, 19.7.2010 (II ZB 18/09), NZG 2011, 939 (Stollwerk—1. headnote). Cf. critical Claus Luttermann on BGH (II ZB 2/10), EWiR 2011, 619.

  49. 49.

    Luttermann (1999b), pp. 45, 51: longer reference period for adequacy and against abuse.

  50. 50.

    BGH, 28.6.2011 (II ZB 10/10), <openJur 2011, 94726>.

  51. 51.

    Questionable: BFH, 13.10.2010 (I R 79/09), BFHE 231, 529; FG Düsseldorf, 11.08.2009 (6 K 3742/06 K,G), EFG 2010, 133. With a different view: Luttermann (2010b), pp. 193–200.

  52. 52.

    Basic Luttermann (1998), pp. 536–539. Corr. BGH, 28.5.2013 (II ZR 67/12), <openJur 2013, 32852> (BGHZ 197, 284, ZIP 2013, 1570).

  53. 53.

    BVerfG, 29.11.2006 (1 BvR 704/03), NJW 2007, 828, 829; Luttermann (2007b), pp. 611–618.

  54. 54.

    Cf. BGH, 22.4.2010 (I ZR 74/08), BeckRS 2010, 24954 (recital 36); BGH, 20.10.2010 (XII ZR 25/09), NJW 2011, 61 (recital 19); BGH, 27.1.2016 (XII ZR 33/15), <lexetius.com/2016,325> (recital 50).

  55. 55.

    Reason for S 305(1) AktG, reprinted by Bruno Kropff, Aktiengesetz (IDW, Düsseldorf 1965) 165, 397.

  56. 56.

    Luttermann (2006a), pp. 816–819; so already: Luttermann (1997), pp. 1181, 1183, 1184.

  57. 57.

    Cf. BGH, 12.3.2001 (II ZB 15/00), BGHZ 147, 108.

  58. 58.

    In detail Claus Luttermann in Kropff and Semler (2003) vol 5/1, S 264 HGB, paras 16–169, and S 243, 342 HGB, paras 7–10; Luttermann (2010a), pp. 346–355.

  59. 59.

    See Chap. 7.

  60. 60.

    BGH, 2.3.2009 (II ZR 264/07), NZG 659, 661. See also S 245 HGB: in Sect. 8.6.2 an in Sect. 7.3.1.

  61. 61.

    In more detail on this Luttermann (2015b), pp. 274–282. See above Sects. 8.4.3 and 7.7.

  62. 62.

    Accordingly in cases concerning dispossession law (Art 14, 15 GG) procedurally also in the administrative court.

  63. 63.

    In more detail on expert opinions on valuation Claus Luttermann (footnote 3, chap. A.7.) paras 40–50. With reference to auditors (Wirtschaftsprüfer- certified public accountants) Luttermann (2017).

  64. 64.

    See in Sect. 7.5.5 and below Sect. 8.6.

  65. 65.

    Fundamentally on ‘value’ and ‘price’ Claus Luttermann (footnote 3, chap. A.7.).

  66. 66.

    IDW S 1 (4.7.2016), para 29.

  67. 67.

    So IDW S 1, para 68.

  68. 68.

    Cf. Claus Luttermann (footnote 3, chap. A.7.), paras 14–19.

  69. 69.

    22. recital, Directive 2013/34/EU on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, 19.

  70. 70.

    Reasoning, Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur weiteren Erleichterung der Sanierung von Unternehmen (E-ESUG), Bundestags-Drucksache 17/5712, 4.5.2011, 32. ESUG of 7.12.2011, BGBl. 2011 I 2582. See Luttermann and Geißler (2013), pp. 1381–1386.

  71. 71.

    E.g., BGH, 31.5.2011 (II ZR 141/09—Telekom), ZIP 2011, 1036; BGH, 1.12.2008 (II ZR 102/07—MPS), ZIP 2009, 70.

  72. 72.

    ECJ, 3 October 2013 (C-322/12—Gimle SA), paras 30–33, ZIP 2014, 166 on Article 31(1)(c) Directive 78/660/EEC. Cf. Article 6(1)(c) Directive 2013/34/EU.

  73. 73.

    Besides accounts-based covenants e.g. legally the balance sheet profit (S 58(4) AktG) and the limitation of liability (S 13(2) GmbHG, S 1(1)(2) AktG).

  74. 74.

    See above Sect. 8.4.3 (at the end) and Claus Luttermann in Kropff and Semler (2003) vol 5/1, S 264 HGB, paras 76–78.

  75. 75.

    Claus Luttermann in Kropff and Semler (2003) vol 5/1, EinfBilanzR, paras 26–43.

  76. 76.

    BGH, 29.9.2015 (II ZB 23/14), ZIP 2016, 110 (recital 34); BGH, 17.11.2010 (XII ZR 170/09), FamRZ 2011, 183, 1. headnote, following the BGH, 12.7.1995 (XII ZR 109/94), BGHZ 130, 298, 303; BGH, 17.7.2002 (XII ZR 218/00), FamRZ 2003, 153, 154. This means it is not a precept by the GG: BVerfG, 26.04.2011 (1 BvR 2658/10), BB 2011, 1518 (with remark Hartwin Bungert).

  77. 77.

    Cf. Claus Luttermann (footnote 3, chap. A.7.).

  78. 78.

    BVerfG, BVerfGE 100, 289, 306; see on this also above Sect. 8.3.5; cf. below Sect. 8.6.5.

  79. 79.

    BGH, 29.9.2015 (II ZB 23/14), ZIP 2016, 110 (S 327f AktG).

  80. 80.

    Preceding footnote; constitutional law BVerfG, 16.5.2012 (1 BvR 96/09), ZIP 2012, 1408 (<lexetius.com/2012,3603>). For Austria: OGH (Austrian High Court), 27.2.2013 (6 Ob 25/12p), GES 2013, 131.

  81. 81.

    Claus Luttermann (footnote 3, chap. D.8.) paras 14–16. See also Sects. 8.3.4, 8.6.5 and 7.8.5.

  82. 82.

    On this BGH, 29.9.2015 (II ZB 23/14), ZIP 2016, 110; OLG Karlsruhe, 23.7.2015 (12a W 4/15), <openJur 2015, 19254>. Cf. Matschke and Brösel (2013), pp. 759–809.

  83. 83.

    Like, e.g., the rescue of private banks in the financial crisis since 2007; see in Sect. 9.7.

  84. 84.

    See fundamentally Luttermann (2009), pp. 1–11. See also below in Sect. 9.7.2.

  85. 85.

    IAS 38.8(b); see also in Sect. 7.4.6 and IASB Conceptual Framework, ED/2015/3 (May 2015), 4.5 and 4.6, 4.13 (potential to produce economic benefits). Cf. on the measure of value Luttermann (2008c), pp. 193–204.

  86. 86.

    See for a general view Chap. 9. Critically already Luttermann (2006b), pp. 778–786. On valuation theory Hering et al. (2010), pp. 29–43.

  87. 87.

    Flynn v. Bass Bros. Enterprises, Inc., 744 F.2d 978, 986 (3rd Cir 1984). Altogether Luttermann (1999a); Luttermann (2007b), pp. 611, 612–618.

  88. 88.

    Friedrich Schiller, Die Braut von Messina, 1803, act four, appearance four (Princess Isabella).

  89. 89.

    See Sect. 8.5.5. See for an exemplary critique LG München I, 31.7.2015 (5 HK O 16371/13—MAN SE), BeckRS 2015, 13240 (ZIP 2015, 2124), B.II.1.b.(2). Cf. OLG München, 17.7.2014 (31 Wx 407/13), ZIP 2014, 1589; OLG Düsseldorf, 28.8.2014 (I-26 W 9/12), <openJur 2014, 22517> (about IDW-Standards: ZIP 2014, 2388). On empirical determination of the market risk premium: OLG Karlsruhe, 23.7.2015 (12a W 4/15), <openJur 2015, 19254>; to calculate the beta factor: OLG Karlsruhe, 13.5.2013 (12 W 77/08 (13)), <openJur 2013, 34634> (ABB AG; BB 2013, 2544).

  90. 90.

    BGH, 17.11.2010 (XII ZR 170/09), FamRZ 2011, 183, 2. headnote and recital (34).

  91. 91.

    BGH, 16.6.1992 (VI ZR 264/91), VersR 1992, 1410-11.

  92. 92.

    See also Sect. 9.6.3.

  93. 93.

    BGH, 16.6.1992 (VI ZR 264/91), VersR 1992, 1410 f.

  94. 94.

    Cf. S 294 ZPO (Glaubhaftmachung) and S 286(1) ZPO (Vollbeweis). Fundamentally on probability calculation and value theory Luttermann (1998), pp. 229–233.

  95. 95.

    On this BGH, 21.7.2003 (II ZB 17/01), NJW 2003, 3272, 3273.

  96. 96.

    In the valuation of real estate and buildings: BGH, 24.9.1991 (VI ZR 293/90), NJW 1991, 3282, 3283; cf. BGH, 20.5.2003 (VI ZR 312/02), NJW 2003, 2825.

  97. 97.

    BGH, 14.6.2011 (IX ZR 145/11), BGHZ 193, 297 (<lexetius.com/2012,2653>). Cf. BGH, 14.11.2000 (X ZR 203/98), NJW 2001, 514.

  98. 98.

    In more detail Großfeld and Luttermann (2005), paras 335–337, 1780.

  99. 99.

    BGH, 14.7.1986 (II ZR 249/85), NJW-RR 1987, 21, 22.

  100. 100.

    BGH, 28.1.2003 (VI ZR 139/02), VersR 2003, 474, 475, confirmed in: BGH, 4.11.2003 (VI ZR 28/03), VersR 2004, 118; BGH, 8.7.2008 (VI ZR 274/07), <lexetius.com/2008,1875>.

  101. 101.

    BVerfG, 18.1.2001 (1 BvR 1273/96), NJW 2001, 1639, 1640; BGH, 17.2.1970 (III ZR 139/67), BGHZ 53, 245, 255-56; established jurisdiction, e.g., BGH, 12.2.2008 (VI ZR 221/06), NJW 2008, 1381.

  102. 102.

    Luttermann (2015a), pp. 31–48. See also Claus Luttermann, following footnote, and Sects. 7.7 and 7.9.2.

  103. 103.

    See Claus Luttermann (footnote 6).

  104. 104.

    E.g., Luttermann (2016), pp. 90–95.

  105. 105.

    Cf. Mulford and Comiskey (2005). See, e.g., Timothy Green, Amazon’s impressive cash flow: Don’t be fooled by it (<http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/28/investing/amazon-cash-flow>).

  106. 106.

    See Sect. 7.9. Comparative legal analysis, e.g.: Claus Luttermann in Kropff and Semler (2003) vol 5/1, S 264 HGB, paras 16–169; Takahashi et al. (2013), pp. 1–52.

  107. 107.

    ECJ, 13.5.2015 (C-536/13—Gazprom OAO), recital 37 (Arbitration).

  108. 108.

    Altogether Luttermann (2015b), pp. 274, 279–281.

  109. 109.

    Basic Luttermann (2004), pp. 18–30; Luttermann (2007a), pp. 18–23.

References

  • Ammon L (1998) Rechtsprechungsübersicht zum aktienrechtlichen Spruchverfahren. Praxis der Freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit (FGPrax) 4:121–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmerich V, Sonnenschein J (1997) Konzernrecht, 5th edn. CH Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer H, Hüttemann R (2015) Rechtshandbuch Unternehmensbewertung. CH Beck, München

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Großfeld B, Egger U, Tönnes WA (2016) Recht der Unternehmensbewertung, 8th edn. RWS Verlag, Köln

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Großfeld B, Luttermann C (2005) Bilanzrecht (Accounting Law): Die Rechnungslegung in Jahresabschluß und Konzernabschluß nach Handelsrecht und Steuerrecht, Europarecht und IAS/IFRS, 4th edn. CF Müller Verlag, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Heigel LM (2007) Unternehmensbewertung zwischen Recht und Markt. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Hering T, Olbrich M, Rollberg R (2010) Zur angelsächsischen Bewertungstheorie als Mitursache der Finanzkrise. In: Keuper F, Neumann F (eds) Corporate governance, risk management and compliance. SpringerGabler, Wiesbaden, pp 29–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Huan-Chang C (1911) The economic principles of Confucius and his school, 2 vol. Columbia University, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hüffer U (1997) Aktiengesetz, 3rd edn. CH Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones M (ed) (2011) Creative accounting, fraud and international accounting scandals. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Koller T, Goedhart M, Wessels D (2015) Valuation: measuring and managing the value of companies, 6th edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Kropff B, Semler J (eds) (2003) Münchener Kommentar zum Aktiengesetz, 2nd edn. vol. 5/1. CH Beck Verlag, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (1997) Der Abfindungsanspruch außenstehender Aktionäre. Juristenzeitung (JZ) 52:1181–1184

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (1998) Unternehmen, Kapital und Genußrechte. Verlag Mohr/Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (1999a) Bilanzrecht in den USA und internationale Konzernrechnungslegung. Verlag Mohr/Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (1999b) Zum Börsenkurs als gesellschaftsrechtliche Bewertungsgrundlage. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (ZIP) 20:45–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2000) Bewertungsrecht im Internetzeitalter: Über Finanzkommunikation, Börsenkurs, Wahrscheinlichkeit und ‘virtuelle Aktiengesellschaft’. Die Aktiengesellschaft (AG) 45:459–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2001) Der ‘durchschnittliche’ Börsenkurs bei Barabfindung von Aktionären und Verschmelzungswertrelation. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (ZIP) 22:869–872

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2004) Bilanzwahrheit international: Die Rechtsanbindung von Rechnungslegung und Wirtschaftsprüfung. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (ZVglRWiss) 103:18–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2006a) Rechtsnatur und Praxis des Abfindungsanspruchs (S 305 AktG) als gesetzliches Schuldverhältnis. Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht (NZG) 9:816–819

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2006b) Unternehmenskontrolle und Bilanzmanipulation nach anglo-amerikanischen Mustern (IAS/IFRS und U.S. ‘GAAP’). Die Wirtschaftsprüfung (WPg) 59:778–786

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2007a) Normenklarheit im Steuerrecht und ‘unbestimmte’ Rechtsbegriffe? Finanz-Rundschau (FR) 89:18–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2007b) Zur Rechtspraxis internationaler Unternehmensbewertung bei der Publikums-Aktiengesellschaft. Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht (NZG) 10:611–618

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2008a) Juristische Person, Konzern und Existenzvernichtungshaftung. Juristische Arbeitsblätter (JA) 40:833–838

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2008b) Kreditversicherung (Credit Default Swaps): Vertrag, Restrukturierung und Regulierung (Hedge-Fonds, Rating, Schattenbanken). Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) 54:737–743

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2008c) Über Vertragsverhältnisse und Bewertungsrecht: Geld, Zeitwert und internationaler Goldstandard. Finanz-Betrieb (FB) 9:193–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2009) ‘Fair Value’: Mythos, Methoden und Maß international. Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) 55:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2010a) Bilanzregeln und Finanzkrise: Die Besteuerung nach Leistungsfähigkeit und Bilanzwahrheit als Beweismaß. Steuer und Wirtschaft (StuW) 87/40:346–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2010b) Die Besteuerung bei aktienrechtlichen Zwangsausschlüssen. Finanz-Rundschau (FR) 92:193–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2010c) Juristische Analyse von Ökonomie, Staat und Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (ZRP) 43:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2011a) Die Finanzaufsicht des Vatikans, Zentralbanken und Reform internationaler Währungsunordnung. Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) 57:214–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2011b) AG: Beherrschungs- und Gewinnabführungsvertrag, Abfindung, Referenzzeitraum, Vermögensverschiebung. Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht (EWiR) 26:619

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2012) Internationale Vermögensordnung, Insolvenzrecht und Schulden(transfer)systeme. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (ZIP) 33:305–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2015a) Corporate law and the Vermoegensordnung (order of assets). Eur Bus Law Rev (EBLR) 26:31–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2015b) Über Idee und Methodik eines internationalen Investitionsschutzes (Vermögensordnung) durch Privatrecht und Völkerrecht. Zeitschrift für Europarecht, Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung (ZfRV) 56:274–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2016) German and Russian direct investment under the rule of international law. Zeitschrift für Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht (IWRZ) 1:90–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C (2017) Reform der Wirtschaftsprüferausbildung, zivilprozessuales Bewertungskonzept und Zukunft des Berufsstandes. Der Betrieb (DB) 71:137–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C, Geißler S (2012) Haftungsfragen transnationaler Konzernfinanzierung (cash pooling) und das Bilanzstatut der Gesellschaft. Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 32:55–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Luttermann C, Geißler S (2013) Rechtsbasis und Praxis einer Kultur der Unternehmenssanierung. Zeitschrift für das gesamte Insolvenzrecht (ZInsO) 16:1381–1386

    Google Scholar 

  • Matschke MJ, Brösel G (2013) Unternehmensbewertung: Funktionen, Methoden, Grundsätze, 4th edn. SpringerGabler, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulford CW, Comiskey EE (2005) Creative cash flow reporting. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen K, Zwirner C, Brösel G (eds) (2017) Handbuch Unternehmensbewertung, 2nd edn. Bundesanzeiger Verlag, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz J (2008) The practice of value. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith A (1790) The theory of moral sentiments, 1759, 6th edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi E, Fleischer H, Baum H (2013) Unternehmensbewertung im Recht der Aktiengesellschaft: Ein japanisch-deutscher Rechtsvergleich. Zeitschrift für Japanisches Rechts (ZJapanR/J.Japan.L) 36:1–52

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Catholic University of Eichstaett-Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany

    Claus Luttermann

Authors
  1. Claus Luttermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claus Luttermann .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Luttermann, C. (2017). Legal Requirements for the Proper Appraisal of Companies: A Substantive Civil-Procedural Concept. In: German Corporate Governance in International and European Context. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54198-2_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54198-2_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-54197-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-54198-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation