Shareholder disputes in Germany: Legal boundaries, cost risks and governance duties
Increasing globalisation, foreign investors and cross-border holding structures have fundamentally changed the nature of corporate conflicts. Nowadays, disputes often involve parties from different jurisdictions with different legal traditions, governance expectations and strategic interests. For directors, this development entails considerable legal, financial and governance-related risks.
In international shareholder disputes, the decisive issue is frequently not who is right, but where the dispute is heard. The choice of jurisdiction can have a significant impact on the duration, costs, enforceability and even the outcome of the proceedings. An inadequate or inconsistent jurisdiction strategy can lead to parallel proceedings in different countries, conflicting decisions and considerable legal uncertainty.
Arbitration in company law: Where the line is drawn
German company law follows the principle that matters relating to the legal status and organisation of a company are subject to the law of the company’s registered office. Such ‘state matters’ are not freely disposable and can only be submitted to arbitration under strict conditions. Contrary to this, purely financial disputes between shareholders or between shareholders and the company are often open to arbitration. The correct distinction between these categories is essential for the drafting of jurisdiction or arbitration clauses.
“We draft jurisdiction and arbitration clauses, represent companies in national and cross-border shareholder disputes, and advise managing directors on governance or personal liability arising from shareholder disputes.”
Eda Kaplan, Attorney at Law, ECOVIS Germany, Cologne, Germany
The importance of arbitration
Arbitration offers clear advantages in international disputes, particularly confidentiality and global enforceability under the New York Convention. However, its use in corporate law is restricted. German case law requires that all shareholders be bound by arbitration clauses, especially where status matters are concerned. Poorly drafted clauses risk being invalid, leading to parallel proceedings, contradictory decisions and significant cost exposure.
For managing directors, inadequate forum planning is not merely a legal flaw but a governance and liability risk. Procedural missteps may trigger personal liability for breach of duty. Effective dispute prevention therefore forms part of sound corporate governance and risk management.
What companies should do
Companies and managing directors should regularly review articles of association and shareholder agreements, particularly in international structures. Clear, consistent and enforceable forum and arbitration clauses are essential to avoid costly disputes, procedural errors and personal liability. Companies should therefore seek legal advice early and proactively, say the Ecovis consultants, because a professionally designed jurisdiction strategy can decisively influence the outcome, costs and duration of shareholder disputes.
For further information please contact
