Private Equity Minority Investments - Universität St.Gallen

Part Two: Legal Framework and Toolsauthors, must be of elevated importance to the company. 623 The respectivedecisions subject to approval must be precisely and concretely outlined inthe articles of association; general clauses must be avoided. 624 Whatremains highly contentious, and is much discussed among legal scholars, iswhether approval rights may also be introduced concerning the nondelegableand inalienable powers of the managing officers. One sector oflegal scholars argues in favor of such a possibility based on where the legalprovision is placed within the corporate law framework, 625 the nature as aveto right (and not the transfer of authority), 626 and the person-orientedcharacteristic of the GmbH 627 . 628 Other scholars exclude the non-delegableand inalienable powers of the managing officers from the scope ofapplication of approval rights. 629 BÖCKLI, holds the latter opinion, but seesan exception in decisions concerning the organization of the firm. 630 Inaddition, TRUFFER and DUBS see certain exceptions concerning questionsrelated to the accounting system, the financial controls, and financialplanning, 631 singular decisions relating to the ultimate managementresponsibility, 632 and to the supervision of persons entrusted with parts ofthe management 633 . 634 The legal controversy may be resolved by theongoing revision of corporate law. The Draft Legislation 635 expresslyprovides that, of the non-delegable and inalienable duties of the managingofficers of a GmbH, only decisions concerning the ultimate managementresponsibility 636 and the determination of the corporate organizationFISCHER/PETRIN, CO 811, N 3; FORSTMOSER/PEYER, p. 402 et seq.; BÖCKLI, GmbH-Recht, p.32 et seq.; NATER, p. 169.623See WATTER/ROTH PELLANDA, Basler Kommentar, CO 811, N 8; BÖCKLI, GmbH-Recht, p.32 (“gegen Entscheidungen, die über den gewöhnlichen Geschäftsbetrieb hinausgehen”).624See SIFFERT/FISCHER/PETRIN, CO 811, N 3; NUSSBAUM/SANWALD/SCHEIDEGGER, CO 811,N 3; FORSTMOSER/PEYER, p. 402 et seq.; NATER, p. 169 et seq.625CO 811 is seen as a first exception to the non-delegable and inalienable powers of themanaging officers in CO 810 II. See WATTER/ROTH PELLANDA, Basler Kommentar, CO 811,N 7; HANDSCHIN, GmbH, p. 11; FORSTMOSER/PEYER, p. 401.626See MEIER, p. 315.627See NATER, p. 173 et seq.; FORSTMOSER/PEYER, p. 401.628See GASSER/EGGENBERGER/STÄUBER, Orell Füssli Kommentar, CO 811, N 4;WATTER/ROTH PELLANDA, Basler Kommentar, CO 810, N 5; CO 811, N 7;SIFFERT/FISCHER/PETRIN, CO 811, N 3; MEIER-HAYOZ/FOSTMOSER, § 18, N 110, 116;FORSTMOSER/PEYER/SCHOTT, p. 37, N 67; NATER, p. 173 et seq.; HANDSCHIN, GmbH, p. 23.Cf. also NUSSBAUM/SANWALD/SCHEIDEGGER, CO 810, N 5, but CO 811, N 3.629See HANDSCHIN/TRUNINGER, § 13, N 5, § 14, N 9; KOLLER, GmbH, p. 244. Cf. OLIVARPASCUAL/ROTH, p. 472 (only allowing singular decisions in the context thereof).630BÖCKLI, GmbH-Recht, p. 32, FN 151.631CO 810 II Sec. 3.632CO 810 II Sec. 1.633CO 810 II Sec. 4.634TRUFFER/DUBS, Basler Kommentar, CO 804, N 45.635See FN 463.636See “ultimate management responsibility” in Section IV.D.2.1.114