Contact
Your law firm TURGERLEGAL.
address
Kurfürstendamm 195
10707 Berlin
10707 Berlin
Opening hours
Mon. – Fri. 10:00 – 17:00
TURGERLEGAL - Expertise. Reliability. Dedication
Preliminary injunctions in the run-up to shareholders' meetings: What the Hoffenheim case means for corporate law
Specialist article in corporate law
What the TSG Hoffenheim case reveals about power, procedures and preliminary legal protection in GmbH law
The recent events surrounding the TSG Hoffenheim have attracted considerable attention beyond the realm of sports. From a corporate law perspective, a central question arises:
Under what conditions can a shareholders' meeting be prevented by way of an interim injunction?
Especially in conflict-ridden limited liability company (GmbH) structures, preliminary legal protection in corporate law is gaining increasing importance. The Hoffenheim case illustrates that corporate power issues are often decided not only in terms of majority rule, but also in procedural law.
Principle: The shareholders' meeting is the place where decisions are made.
An interim injunction (Sections 935 et seq. of the German Code of Civil Procedure) serves to provisionally secure rights. However, in German limited liability company (GmbH) law, it is an exceptional instrument. In principle, the internal decision-making process of the shareholders should not be blocked by hasty judicial intervention.
Anyone wishing to legally stop a shareholders' meeting must credibly demonstrate two key prerequisites:
- Right of disposal – that is, a material right that is being violated
- Reason for the order – a particular urgency
The requirements are particularly high in connection with shareholder meetings.
When can a shareholders' meeting be prevented by an injunction?
In practice, serious defects in the convening of the meeting are the primary grounds for challenge. A shareholders' meeting is contestable if it was not properly convened and the proposed resolutions would be invalid from the outset.
Typical constellations are:
- Non-invitation of individual shareholders
- Invitation by a person not authorized to issue a summons
- Disregard for mandatory deadlines
- Unclear or surprising agenda items
- Violations of mandatory provisions of the articles of association
In these cases, the court does not interfere with the substantive decision-making process. It merely ensures compliance with the formal requirements. If there is a particularly serious defect in the convening of the meeting, the shareholders' meeting may be prohibited.
Is the threat of dismissal of a managing director sufficient grounds for an injunction?
Of particular practical relevance is the question of whether the planned dismissal of a managing director can be prevented by means of preliminary legal protection.
As a general rule, shareholders are free to vote. A court will only intervene if there are explicit voting prohibitions or if a specific course of action is mandatory due to the fiduciary duty owed to the company.
The mere fact that a majority plans a decision by the company's governing body is not sufficient. It is generally reasonable to await the shareholders' meeting and challenge the resolution by filing a lawsuit based on procedural defects.
An injunction is only considered if holding the assembly would threaten irreversible harm – for example, if irreversible facts would be created that cannot be reversed later.
The Hoffenheim case as an example of preventive preliminary legal protection
In connection with the TSG Hoffenheim The holding of a shareholders' meeting was authorized by the Heidelberg Regional Court prohibited. According to reports, the application was made, among other things, by Dietmar Hopp.
What is remarkable is less the socio-political background than the legal situation: Judicial intervention before the meeting has even taken place is rare in limited liability company (GmbH) law. This suggests that either there were significant defects in the convening of the meeting or exceptionally compelling procedural reasons were credibly demonstrated.
This case thus exemplifies how sensitive the interplay between shareholder rights, corporate positions and contractual responsibilities is.
Action for annulment of a decision or preliminary injunction – which is the right way?
In corporate law practice, the strategic question regularly arises as to whether a shareholders' meeting should be stopped preventively or whether challenging the resolution later is the right way to go.
An injunction is the more forceful, but also riskier, instrument. If the application is rejected, this can significantly weaken one's position among the shareholders. A careful legal analysis of the chances of success is therefore essential.
Conclusion: Form, deadline, and jurisdiction are decisive
The Hoffenheim case impressively demonstrates that corporate disputes are not only decided by capital majorities, but also by formal requirements and procedural precision.
Anyone wishing to prepare for or prevent a shareholders' meeting should have the matter reviewed early on.,
- whether there are formal defects in the summons,
- whether a right to injunctive relief exists,
- and whether the conditions for preliminary legal protection are actually met.
Are you facing a controversial shareholders' meeting? Is the dismissal of the managing director imminent, or is a strategic majority decision being made?
In corporate law, the right reaction at the right moment is often crucial. We quickly assess whether an injunction is appropriate or whether an action for defective resolutions is the right course of action.
Contact us for an initial legal assessment of your corporate law situation.
Make an inquiry now
We will be happy to provide you with comprehensive, personal advice on your concerns.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes, a shareholders' meeting can be stopped by way of a preliminary injunction. However, this requires that there are serious defects in the convening of the meeting or a particular urgency. The hurdles under German limited liability company (GmbH) law are high.
A defect in the notice of a meeting exists in particular if not all shareholders were properly summoned, deadlines were disregarded, or the invitation was issued by an unauthorized person. The applicable legal provisions and the articles of association are decisive.
Generally not. The mere announcement of a managing director's dismissal is not sufficient for preliminary legal protection. Additional circumstances must exist that make waiting unreasonable.
An injunction serves to immediately and provisionally secure rights before a resolution is implemented or executed. An action challenging a resolution, on the other hand, retrospectively challenges a shareholder resolution that has already been passed.
A claim for injunctive relief (material infringement of rights) and grounds for injunctive relief (urgency) are required. Both prerequisites must be substantiated.
Courts often decide on preliminary injunctions within a few days or weeks. However, this requires a carefully prepared application with substantiated arguments.
Only in exceptional cases. In principle, shareholders are free to exercise their voting rights. Intervention is only considered in cases of clear voting prohibitions or unambiguous breaches of fiduciary duty.
If the application is rejected, the shareholders' meeting can take place as planned. Furthermore, a negative decision could weaken one's own strategic position among the shareholders.
Yes. Minority shareholders can also apply for an injunction if their rights are violated by serious procedural errors or bad faith conduct.
Especially in potentially conflict-prone situations, an early review of company law is advisable. Formal errors, deadlines, or questions of jurisdiction can determine the validity of later resolutions.
