1 For the jurisprudence of the lawyers’ courts, see AGH North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of April 21, 2023 – 1 AGH 2/23 = BeckRS 2023, 11391; AGH Hamburg, judgment of November 22, 2023 – AGH I ZU 5/2023 (I-44), NJOZ 2024, 857; AGH North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of. April 19, 2024 – 1 AGH 17/24, NJOZ 2024, 955; AGH North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of May 24, 2024 – 1 AGH 43/23, BeckRS 2024, 15471. For the case law of the BGH, see BGH, decision v. December 29, 2016–AnwZ (Brfg) 53/16, NJW 2017, 1181; Decision v. November 9, 2018–AnwZ (Brfg) 61/18, NZI 2019, 95; Decision v. May 10, 2022–AnwZ (Brfg) 9/22, NJOZ 2022, 1432; Decision v. July 20, 2023–AnwZ (Brfg) 11/23, NJOZ 2023, 1406; Decision v. December 20, 2022–AnwZ (Brfg) 22/22, NJOZ 2023, 250; Decision v. September 1, 2023 – AnwZ (Brfg) 21/23, NJOZ 2024, 213; Decision v. September 27, 2023 – AnwZ (Brfg) 18/23, NJW-RR 2023, 1609; Decision v. January 12, 2024 – AnwZ (Brfg) 40/23, NJOZ 2024, 377; on the Stronczek Chamber Practice, Chamber Notices RAK Düsseldorf 2012, 390, 2013, 83.
2 St. Case: BGH, decision of. December 29, 2016 – AnwZ (Brfg) 53/16, NJW 2017, 1181 Rn. 15; Decision v. April 19, 2022 – AnwZ (Brfg) 39/21, NJOZ 2022, 984 Rn. 25; Decision v. May 10, 2022 – AnwZ (Brfg) 9/22, NJOZ 2022, 1432 Rn. 21; Decision v. May 30, 2022 – AnwZ (Brfg) 43/21, NJOZ 2022, 1490, Rn. 8; Decision v. December 20, 2022–AnwZ (Brfg) 22/22, NJOZ 2023, 250 Rn. 23.
3 St. Cases, plus BGH, decision of. February 9, 2015 – AnwZ (Brfg) 46/14, BeckRS 2015, 6885 Rn. 12; Decision v. March 17, 2016 – AnwZ (Brfg) 6/16, NJOZ 2016, 1106 Rn. 4; Decision v. August 26, 2013 – AnwZ Brfg 31/13, BeckRS 2013, 16997 Rn. 5; Decision v. November 9, 2018 – AnwZ (Brfg) 61/18, NZI 2019, 95 Rn. 5; Resolution of December 29, 2016 – AnwZ (Brfg) 53/16, NZI 2017, 215 Rn. 15; Decision v. December 11, 2019 – AnwZ (Brfg) 50/19, BeckRS 2019, 34866 Rn. 47; Decision v. October 15, 2019 – AnwZ (Brfg) 6/19, BeckRS 2019, 28800 Rn. 31 f. See also Ganter, NZI 2022, 409, 410. Critical to this jurisprudence Kleine-Cosack, BRAO, 9th edition 2022, § 14 paragraph 26.
4 BGH, judgment of June 20, 2016 – AnwZ (Brfg) 38/15, BeckRS 2016, 13120 = DStR 2017, 463; Kleine-Cosack, BRAO, 9th edition 2022, §14 Rn. 27; Ganter, NZI 2023, 297, 309.
5 Ganter, NZI 2022, 409, 410; see BGH, decision v. February 9, 2015 – AnwZ (Brfg) 46/14, BeckRS 2015, 6885 Rn. 12; Resolution of March 17, 2016 – AnwZ (Brfg) 6/16, NJOZ 2016, 1106 Rn. 4; each mw Nachw.; Resolution of December 29, 2016 – AnwZ (Brfg) 53/16, NZI 2017, 215 Rn. 15; Decision v. November 9, 2018 – AnwZ (Brfg) 61/18 Rn. 5, NZI 2019, 95 Rn. 5; Decision v. January 20, 2022 – AnwZ (Brfg) 38/21, BeckRS 2022, 4031 Rn. 7.
6 BGH, decision of. September 1, 2023 – AnwZ (Brfg) 21/23, NJOZ 2024, 213.
7 BGH, decision of December 29, 2016 – AnwZ (Brfg) 53/16, NJW 2017, 1181 Rn. 9; Henssler/Prütting/Henssler, BRAO, 6th edition 2024, § 14 Rn. 42; Kleine-Cosack, BRAO, 9th edition 2022, §14 Rn. 33.
8 BGH, decision of December 29, 2016–AnwZ (Brfg) 53/16, NJW 2017, 1181 Rn. 9.
9 BGH, decision of September 1, 2023 – AnwZ (Brfg) 24/23, BeckRS 2023, 26991 Rn. 10.
10 This is based on Section 35 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 InsO. See BGH, decision of September 1, 2023 – AnwZ (Brfg) 24/23, BeckRS 2023, 26991, Rn. 10, note on this Schmidt, VIA 2023, 92.
11 BGH, decision of September 1, 2023 – AnwZ (Brfg) 24/23, BeckRS 2023, 26991 Rn. 10; see also BGH, decision of June 3, 2015 – AnwZ (Brfg) 11/15, NJOZ 2015, 1341 Rn. 4; Resolution of November 20, 2017 – AnwZ (Brfg) 41/17, BeckRS 2017, 135104 Rn. 10; Decision of February 21, 2018 – AnwZ (Brfg) 72/17, NZI 2018, 422 Rn. 11; Decision of February 5, 2019 – AnwZ (Brfg) 50/18, BeckRS 2019, 2671 Rn. 10; Resolution of September 17, 2015 – AnwZ (Brfg) 29/15, BeckRS 2015, 16810 Rn. 6; Resolution of November 9, 2020 – AnwZ (Brfg) 19/20, BeckRS 2020, 34275 Rn. 6 (with note Mayer, FD-RVG 2021, 435160); Resolution of April 19, 2022 – AnwZ (Brfg) 2/22, NJOZ 2022, 861 Rn. 9.
12 BGH, decision of September 1, 2023 – AnwZ (Brfg) 24/23, BeckRS 2023, 26991 Rn. 10.
13 BGH, decision of September 1, 2023 – AnwZ (Brfg) 24/23, BeckRS 2023, 26991 Rn. 11.
14 BGH, decision of September 1, 2023 – AnwZ (Brfg) 24/23, BeckRS 2023, 26991 Rn. 11.
15 Remmert, AnwBl 2023, 214, 219.
16 BGH, decision of June 21, 1999 – AnwZ (Brfg) 88/98, BRAK communication. 1999, 270, 270; Resolution of March 13, 2000 – AnwZ (Brfg) 28/99, NJW-RR 2000, 1228, 1229; AGH NRW, decision of July 3, 1998 – 1 ZU 26/97, AnwBl 1999, 698; Henssler/Prütting/Henssler, BRAO, 6th edition 2024, § 14 Rn. 33; Weyland/Vossebürger, BRAO, 11th edition 2024, §7 Rn. 142; Little Cosack, BRAO, 9th edition. 2022, §14 Rn. 19. Basics on the concept of asset forfeiture Bartosch-Koch, refusal, withdrawal and revocation of admission to the legal profession due to asset forfeiture, 2007, p. 27 ff.; Maier, The Lawyer’s Insolvency, 2007, p. 197 ff.
17 BGH, decision of December 5, 2005 – AnwZ (Brfg) 13/05, NJW-RR 2006, 559 Rn. 5; Resolution of March 25, 1991 – AnwZ (Brfg) 73/90, BRAK communication. 1991, 102; Resolution of March 25, 1991 – AnwZ (Brfg) 80/90, BRAK-Mitt. 1991, 166; Resolution of October 24, 1994 – AnwZ (Brfg) 35/94, BRAK communication. 1995, 29; Resolution of November 21, 1994 – AnwZ (Brfg) 40/94, BRAK communication. 1995, 126; Kilian/Offermann-Burckart/vom Stein/Nöker, Practical Handbook of Legal Law, 3rd ed. 2018, § 3 Rn. 57; Little Cosack, BRAO, 9th edition. 2022, §14 Rn. 19.
18 Maier, The Lawyer’s Insolvency, 2007, p. 199.
19 Maier, The Lawyer’s Insolvency, 2007, p. 199.
20 Uhlenbruck/Sinz, InsO, 15th edition 2019, § 35 Rn. 290.
21 St. Rspr.; see BGH, decision of October 12, 1990 – NotZ 21/89, DNotZ 1991, 94; Resolution dated March 25, 1991 – AnwZ (Brfg) 73/90, BRAK communication. 1991, 102; Resolution of November 21, 1994 – AnwZ (Brfg) 40/94, BRAK communication. 1995, 126; Resolution of June 16, 2004 – AnwZ (Brfg) 3/03, ZVI 2004, 598, 599.
22 BGH, judgment of January 8, 2015 – IX ZR 203/12, ZIP 2015, 437, 439, judgment of October 12, 2006 – IX ZR 228/03, ZIP 2006, 2222, 2223.
23 Kübler/Prütting/Bork/Steffek, 100th EL June 2024, InsO § 17 Rn. 65, from case law see BGH, judgment of December 19, 2017 – II ZR 88/16, ZIP 2018, 283; Judgment of November 17, 2016 – IX ZR 65/15, ZIP 2016, 2423, 2425; Judgment of July 18, 2013 – IX ZR 143/12, ZIP 2013, 2015, 2017.
24 BGH, judgment of February 14, 2008 – IX ZR 38/04, ZIP 2008, 706, 708; Judgment of January 8, 2015 – IX ZR 203/12, ZIP 2015, 437, 438 f.; Judgment of June 9, 2016 – IX ZR 174/15, ZIP 2016, 1348, 1350; Judgment of January 21, 2016 – IX ZR 32/14, ZIP 2016, 481, 483; Judgment of July 18, 2013 – IX ZR 143/12, ZIP 2013, 2015, 2017; Kübler/Prütting/Bork/Steffek, 100th EL June 2024, InsO § 17 Rn. 65.
25 BGH, judgment of June 16, 2016 – IX ZR 23/15, ZIP 2016, 1388, 1390; Kübler/Prütting/Bork/Steffek, 100.EL June 2024, InsO §17 Rn. 65.
26 This is also true of Maier, The Lawyer’s Insolvency, 2007, p. 199.
27 This is also the case with the settlement procedure, see also Ganter, NZI 2022, 409, 411.
28 For the current opinion, see Ganter, NZI 2022, 409, 412 ff.
29 Ganter, NZI 2022, 409, 413.
30 BT-Drs. 19/24181, S. 84.
31 Section 30 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 StaRUG, see also Ganter, NZI 2022, 409, 412.
32 BGH, decision of March 13, 2000 – AnwZ (B) 28/99, NJW-RR 2000, 1228, 1229.
33 BGH, decision of March 13, 2000 – AnwZ (B) 28/99, NJW-RR 2000, 1228, 1229.
34 BGH, decision of March 13, 2000 – AnwZ (B) 28/99, NJW-RR 2000, 1228, 1229: “Apart from the fact that the insolvency proceedings do not necessarily result in a general ban on disposal for the debtor (cf. §270 InsO ), the loss of the power of disposal would at most be suitable to support the revocation of the approval.”
35 This is conceivable for pharmacists, for example, because the operation of the pharmacy is tied to the license to practice medicine.
36 Maier, The Lawyer’s Insolvency, 2007, p.209 f.
37 On the relationship between the liquidator and the insolvency administrator, see also Tauchert/Schulze-Grönda, BRAK-Mitt. 2010, 115.
38 Weyland/Nöker, BRAO, 11th edition 2024, §55 Rn. 49a; Franke/Böhme, AnwBl. 2004, 339, 341.
39 Schick, NJW 1990, 2359, 2361.
40 Schick, NJW 1990, 2359, 2360 f.; Simonsen/Leverenz, BRAK-Mitt 1995, 224, 229.
41 Weyland/Nöker, BRAO, 11th edition 2024, §54 Rn. 42; Henssler/Prütting/Prütting, BRAO, 6th edition 2024, §54 Rn. 12.
42 Weyland/Nöker, BRAO, 11th edition 2024, § 54 Rn. 42; Henssler/Prütting/Prütting, BRAO, 6th edition 2024, §54 Rn. 9, §55 Rn. 32.
43 These are based on Section 47 InsO, cf. Weyland/Nöker, BRAO, 11th edition 2024, Section 55 Rn. 52; Kleine-Cosack, BRAO, 9th edition 2022, § 55 Rn. 13.
44 OLG Naumburg, judgment of April 3, 2014 – 2 U 62/13, BRAK communication. 2014, 322 = NJW-RR 2014, 1143.
45 OLG Brandenburg, judgment of March 23, 2023 – 10 U 104/21, ZRI 2023, 510.
46 Kruth, DStR 2023, 2302, 2304.
47 BGH, judgment of June 23, 2005 – IX ZR 139/04, NZI 2005, 681 = MDR 2006, 231; OLG Brandenburg, judgment of March 23, 2023 – 10 U 104/21 ZRI 2023, 510, critical Kruth, DStR 2023, 2302, 2304; OLG Naumburg, judgment of April 3, 2014 – 2U62/13, BRAK communication. 2014, 322 = NJW-RR 2014, 1143, 1144; Weyland/Nöker, BRAO, 11th edition 2024, § 55 Rn. 51c; Henssler/Prütting/Remmertz, BRAO, 6th edition 2024, § 55 Rn. 32.
48 OLG Brandenburg, judgment of March 23, 2023 – 10 U 104/21, ZRI 2023, 510.
49 Kruth, DStR 2023, 2302, 2304, ders., DStR 2020, 1340, 1341.
50 Example: BGH, judgment of March 1, 2007 – IX ZR 189/05, NJW 2007, 1196 Rn. 6 mwNachw.
51 BGH, judgment of November 28, 2019 – IX ZR 239/18, NZI 2020, 470 Rn. 11 and passim; Note on this Fridgen, NZI 2020, 475.
52 BGH, judgment of November 28, 2019 – IX ZR 239/18, NZI 2020, 470 Rn. 33.
53 BGH, judgment of November 28, 2019 – IX ZR 239/18, NZI 2020, 470 Rn. 13 ff.
54 Also Fridgen, NZI 2020, 475.
55 This is probably also the case with BGH, judgment of June 23, 2005 – IX ZR 139/04, NZI 2005, 681 for the reverse case of the order before opening.
56 BGH, judgment of June 23, 2005 – IX ZR 139/04, NZI 2005, 681, reference to BGH, judgment of November 28, 2019 – IX ZR 239/18, NZI 2020, 470 Rn. 49.
57 BGH, judgment of June 23, 2005 – IX ZR 139/04, NZI 2005, 681, 682 f.
58 Fridgen, NZI 2020, 475, raises the question of contestability. That would then be a case of Section 96 Paragraph 1 No. 3 InsO.
59 OLG Düsseldorf, decision of June 4, 2024 – 24 U 1/23, BeckRS 2024, 15287 Rn. 7.
60 Applicable Zehlicke, FD-InsR 2024, 816326.
61 Zehlicke, FD-InsR 2024, 816326.
62 BGH, judgment of January 26, 2017 – IX ZR 285/14, NJW 2017, 1684 Rn. 44 f.; Judgment of December 18, 2008 – IX ZR 12/05, NJW 2009, 1141 Rn. 14.
63 BGH, judgment of January 26, 2017 – IX ZR 285/14, NJW 2017, 1684 Rn. 44 f.; Judgment of June 21, 2018 – IX ZR 80/17, NJW 2018, 2476 Rn. 12; Judgment of December 18, 2008 – IX ZR 12/05, NJW 2009, 1141 Rn. 14, each with references.
64 BGH, judgment of June 29, 2023 – IX ZR 56/22, DStRE 2024, 565 Rn. 7.
65 BGH, judgment of June 29, 2023 – IX ZR 56/22, DStRE 2024, 565 Rn. 19.
66 BGH, judgment of June 29, 2023 – IX ZR 56/22, DStRE 2024, 565 Rn. 22.
67 BGH, judgment of January 28, 1976 – VIII ZR 246/74, BGHZ 66, 51. The fact that in this case the damage occurred before the contract was concluded was irrelevant (culpa in contrahendo).
68 Saarbrücken Higher Regional Court, judgment of December 7, 2022 – 5 U 67/21, ZRI 2023, 212 = NZG 2023, 1718.
69 OLG Saarbrücken, judgment of December 7, 2022 – 5 U 67/21, ZRI 2023, 212 = NZG 2023, 1718 Rn. 23 ff.
70 OLG Frankfurt, Urteil vom 23.5.2024 – 4 U 2/23, ZRI 2024, 588 = NZI 2024, 721.
71 This does not entirely fit with the reasons for the judgment, where the focus is primarily on the immediacy within the meaning of Section 142 (2) InsO, which is not explained in the individual case. The judgment further and only reinforces the issue of unfairness within the meaning of Section 142 Paragraph 1 InsO, which also contradicts the cash transaction privilege.
72 However, the court’s assumption that the partner and the company cannot be held jointly and severally liable is wrong. The accessory shareholder liability does not actually mean joint liability between the shareholder and the company. However, this does not exclude a conviction “as joint and several debtors” (instead of “as joint and several debtors”). The judgment remains unclear because it may have been an unrecognized offsetting case. Because in her capacity as trustee, the defendant would have been obliged to pay out the trust assets to the debtor, Section 667 of the German Civil Code (BGB). The withdrawal of one’s own fee could then technically have been an offsetting of one’s own fee claim against the return claim. Then the case would have had to be discussed from the perspective of Section 96 Paragraph 1 No. 3 InsO.
