Denise Wiedemann (Von (Autor)) ist Professorin für Bürgerliches Recht mit Schwerpunkt im Familien- und Erbrecht an der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel.
Leonhard Hübner (Von (Autor)) Geboren 1982; Studium der Rechtswissenschaft an den Universitäten Bonn, Freiburg, Lausanne und Köln; 2007 Erste juristische Staatsprüfung; Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Institut für deutsches und europäisches Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsrecht der Universität Heidelberg; 2008/09 Master-Studium an der University of Oxford, Somerville College (M.Jur.); 2010 Promotion; 2012 Zweite juristische Staatsprüfung; Rechtsanwalt in Hamburg; Wissenschaftlicher Assistent am Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privat- und Wirtschaftsrecht der Universität Heidelberg; 2021 Habilitation; Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Bürgerliches Recht, Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung an der Universität Augsburg.
Geboren 1979; Studium der Rechtswissenschaften an der Universität Passau, der Université de Genève und der LMU München; 2005 Promotion (Universität Bayreuth); Richterin (Landgericht Amberg); Staatsanwältin (Staatsanwaltschaft Nürnberg-Fürth); Referentin für Europäisches Gesellschaftsrecht, Konzern- und Umwandlungsrecht am Bundesministerium der Justiz, Berlin; Notarvertreterin beim Notariat Weinheim; 2013 Ernennung zur Justizrätin; wissenschaftliche Referentin am Deutschen Notarinstitut, Würzburg; 2015 LL.M. (KU Leuven); wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin (in Nebentätigkeit) am Lehrstuhl für Bürgerliches Recht, Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht, HHU Düsseldorf; 2022 Habilitation (HHU Düsseldorf).
ist Direktorin des Max-Planck-Instituts für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, Hamburg; Professorin an der Bucerius Law School, Hamburg.
Geboren 1991; Studium der Rechtswissenschaften an der Universität Münster; 2016-2021 Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter ebendort; 2019 Promotion; Akademischer Rat a.Z. am Lehrstuhl für Internationales Privat- und Verfahrensrecht und Bürgerliches Recht der Universität Münster (Prof. Dr. Bettina Heiderhoff).
The European legislature has issued a series of legal acts aimed at creating a European data space. Common to these instruments is that they establish a regulatory framework for this data space but leave it to be filled by the relevant actors through a network of contracts. The acts include only isolated requirements for these contracts, and their conclusion, validity, and termination is otherwise governed by national law. With regard to such data use contracts, harmonized private international law does not yet provide any specific rules. The two central legal acts-the GDPR and the Data Act-contain provisions only on the territorial scope of application. Against this background, it is subject to debate whether the general conflict-of-law rules of the Rome I and Rome II Regulations apply or are superseded by conflict-of-law rules "hidden" in the rule on the scope of application. Practical differences arise particularly with regard to the admissibility of choice of law and the applicability of European data law in relation to third countries. The analysis shows that a reliable determination of the applicable law requires distinguishing between the existence of rights to data, contracts relating to data, and breaches of obligations relating to data. The article advocates application of the Rome Regulations on determining the law applicable to contracts and torts with adaptation to the specific characteristics of the digital space.
The Example of Overriding Mandatory Provisions in EU Conflict of Laws. The relationship between private international law and administrative international law is rarely examined in detail. Yet both areas would benefit from considering the other. In the context of private international law, this is particularly pertinent in relation to overriding mandatory provisions. In the HUK-Coburg II case, the CJEU recently established two unwritten requirements for the enforcement of these provisions: Courts may enforce such provisions only if, first, the legal situation in question has sufficiently close links with the Member State of the forum and, second, the public interest cannot be achieved through the application of the lexcausae. This article demonstrates that the criterion of a sufficiently close link with the Member State of the forum is viewed differently when considered alongside the principles of administrative international law. The second requirement, the necessity test, has-among other things-a significant influence on approaches to coordinating administrative and private international law through the instrument of overriding mandatory provisions. The article therefore examines how both areas can be better coordinated, at least within the internal market.
The US securities laws from 1933 and 1934 remain to this day the international benchmarkfor modern capital market regulation. Like many other regulations in this area, the legislation was preceded by major scandals. This article reconstructs the two leading scandals surrounding electricity magnate Samuel Insull and "Match King" Ivar Kreuger. After situating them within the spectrum of scandals occurring in the Roaring Twenties, the article considers these incidents in the larger context of research on corporate law scandals.
The cross-border mobility of companies is an expression of the freedom of establishment, which also applies to cooperatives, as emphasized in Art. 54(2) of the TFEU. But German cooperative law doubly constrains the freedom of establishment. First, every registered cooperative (eingetragene Genossenschaft, eG) under German law is subject to mandatory periodic audits. Second, cooperatives must belong to an umbrella organization that the state has authorized to perform the audits. Both obligations-core elements of the German act on cooperatives-may conflict with the freedom of establishment. Considering the German government's 25 June 2025 draft of an act to "Strengthen the Legal Form of the Cooperative", this article explores the tension between regulatory constraints and the freedom of establishment and assesses whether the requirements imposed by German cooperative law are compatible with it.
The business judgment rule is intended to protect managers and board members from personal liability in connection with business decisions, thereby enabling risk-optimized decision-making. However, the requirements of an adequate information base and reasonableness preserve incentives for risk-averse behaviour, and the possibility of erroneous evaluations of business decisions by courts creates further incentives for board members to shy away from risk, yet such risk aversity is inefficient in a diversified shareholder structure. This article examines mechanisms for excluding the personal liability of board members in Delaware (USA) and Switzerland. The policy reference point is the ex ante dispositive liability regime under & sect; 102(b)(7) Delaware General Corporation Law, whereas Swiss corporate law relies on less effective ex post mechanisms. The authors call for the implementation of an opt-out model for liability due to breaches of duty of care, similar-but not identical-to the legal framework in Delaware; such a model could be especially beneficial to high-growth companies. To this end, a policy proposal is developed that should also allow for exemption from liability for gross negligence.
Loacker, Leander D.: Haftpflicht und Billigkeitskorrektiv. Ein Beitrag zu den Härtefallklauseln im Recht der unerlaubten Handlungen. (Zugl.: Zürich, Univ., Habil.-Schr., 2016.) – Zürich: Schulthess 2023. XXXIX, 666 S. – ISBN 978–3-7255–9828–1
Heinrichs, Philipp: Freiheit der Advokatur. Die Singularzulassung beim Bundesgerichtshof im Wandel der Zeit. (Zugl.: Münster, Univ., Diss., 2021). – Baden-Baden: Nomos 2021. 497 S. (Münsterische Beiträge zur Rechtswissenschaft – Neue Folge.) – ISBN 978–3-84–878579–7 – DOI 10.5771/978–3-74–892996–3
The Interpretation and Applicability of Exemption Clauses in Commercial Transactions under German, Swiss, and English Law. Given the unlimited liability that most jurisdictions provide for breach of contract, exemption clauses are, due to the lack of adequate alternatives, an essential tool for contractual risk management in commercial transactions. At the same time, broad application of the law regulating general terms and conditions, in conjunction with the »cardinal obligation doctrine« of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof ), has made it virtually impossible to draft enforceable limitation of liability clauses under German law. English and Swiss law, by contrast, are among the most frequently chosen laws for international commercial transactions and give the parties far more leeway to conclude exemption clauses. Against this background, the article examines principles of interpretation and applicable legal restrictions regarding exemption clauses in these legal systems, also with a view to the potential reform of German law.
Thieme, Reiner: Der gesellschaftsrechtliche Haftungsdurchgriff in der Volksrepublik China. (Zugl.: Freiburg, Univ., Diss., 2023.) – Berlin: Duncker + Humblot 2024. 262 S. (Beiträge zum internationalen Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht. 1.) – ISBN 978–3-428–59058–2 – DOI 10.3790/978–3-428–59058–2
Schnitzler, Paul Hendrik: Grenzüberschreitende Sitzverlegung von Personengesellschaften. Neue Freiheit der rechtlichen und wirtschaftlichen Standortwahl im Binnenmarkt? (Zugl.: Düsseldorf, Univ., Diss., 2023.) – Berlin: Duncker + Humblot 2024. 462 S. (Abhandlungen zum Deutschen und Europäischen Gesellschafts- und Kapitalmarktrecht. 238.) – ISBN 978–3-428–19156–7 – DOI 10.3790/978–3-428–59156–5
