YOUR
Search

    12.08.2024

    All gone: retroactive withdrawal of the managing director's non-competition compensation


    The retroactive and complete withdrawal of a non-competition compensation in the event of a violation against a post-contractual non-compete obligation may be effectively agreed with a managing director of a GmbH (German limited liability company).

    German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), decision of 23 April 2024, II ZR 99/22

    Background

    During the term of their service contract, managing directors of a GmbH are subject to a statutory non-compete obligation requiring them to always keep in mind the best interest of the company and thus banning them from taking advantage of business opportunities for themselves or for third parties. The non-compete obligation ends upon their leaving the position. This (statutory) non-compete obligation will not survive the directors’ term of office. Managing directors are also subject to a contractual non-compete obligation for the duration of their service under their contract.

    A post-contractual non-compete obligation may, however, also be agreed with a managing director for an appropriate period after the end of their service term. While sections 74 et seq of the German Commercial Code (Handelsgesetzbuch, HGB) provide for a mandatory non-competition compensation for employees, it is the prevailing opinion in legal literature and practice that these sections apply neither directly nor mutatis mutandis to managing directors. At least part of legal literature argues that the requirement of a non-competition compensation could, however, be derived from section 138 of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB) in connection with Art. 2 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz, GG) (moral law check). According to (consistent) rulings of the BGH, it is not mandatory to promise any non-competition compensation to the managing director at all for the duration of the non-compete obligation. The effectiveness of a non-compete obligation is not contingent on any compensation. If the decision is taken to pay a compensation regardless of the above, the amount of such compensation will therefore be at the discretion of the parties.

    Facts

    In the case ruled upon by the BGH, a former managing director of a GmbH requested to be paid a non-competition compensation. The managing director was removed from office at the end of May 2012. According to his service agreement, he was subject to a two-year post-contractual non-compete obligation banning him from working for a competitor. The service agreement stipulated monthly payments for the duration of the non-compete obligation as a compensation. This compensation was, however, going to be forfeited retroactively (ex tunc) should the managing director breach the non-compete obligation.

    The managing director started working for a competitor in mid-June of 2013. The GmbH therefore took the stance that it had not been obliged to pay any non-competition compensation from the start due to the violation of the non-compete obligation. The former managing director, on the other hand, believed that the contractual agreement regarding the complete and retroactive withdrawal of his right to compensation was invalid and that the ban particularly violated the principle of proportionality.

    Decision of the BGH

    The BGH ruled in favour of the GmbH confirming the effectiveness of the contractual agreement. It argued that non-compete obligations were only valid if they did not go beyond the scope necessary in terms of place, subject-matter and time.

    The BGH stated that the retroactive withdrawal of the non-competition compensation agreed in the employment contract was not an unfair burden on the managing director. The reasoning behind this was that it was, in fact, not mandatory to promise and pay a non-competition compensation to the GmbH’s managing director who did submit to a post-contractual non-compete obligation. The BGH is of the opinion that if a compensation is agreed despite this fact, the parties are free to negotiate any amount. It reasoned that, consequently, the GmbH and the managing director may effectively agree that the right to compensation in its entirety was forfeited retroactively should a managing director breach the non-compete obligation.

    The Court also disagreed with the managing director's view that the non-competition compensation constituted a what is known as income replacement benefit which could not be forfeited retroactively as the managing director was even contractually allowed to unilaterally waive the non-compete obligation.

    Comment and Implications

    This decision is consistent with past rulings of the Senate according to which a GmbH is not obliged to promise its managing director a non-competition compensation in exchange for the agreement of a non-compete obligation. The possibility of a (complete) loss of the compensation following a breach of the obligation lies within the scope granted to the GmbH by judicial decisions.

    Such retroactive withdrawal is, however, most likely invalid when it comes to employees. The non-compete obligation of an employee is, in fact, not freely negotiable (unlike the obligation of managing directors). Pursuant to section 74 (2) of the German Commercial Code (Handelsgesetzbuch, HGB), the employee's non-competition compensation is the designated consideration for the employee assuming and complying with the obligation. The non-compete obligation of an employee is only valid if a compensation has been agreed for its duration, the amount being at least half of the last remuneration contractually received by the employee and it is paid at the end of each month pursuant to section 74b (1) HGB. When it comes to the fixed payments granted, payments depend on the last monthly salary before leaving the company. Pursuant to section 74b (2) HGB, one-off payments and variable remuneration are based on the average of the last three years broken down to monthly payments.

    In practice, this ruling opens another option for drawing up and negotiating managing director service agreements.

    Dr Barbara Mayer
    Dr Christian Osbahr

    This post also appears in the Haufe Wirtschaftsrechtsnewsletter.

    German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) conf…
    A vote cast contrary to a voting commitment is valid, even if all shareholders e…
    Read more
    All gone: retroactive withdrawal of the ma…
    The retroactive and complete withdrawal of a non-competition compensation in the…
    Read more
    General meeting: ban on bringing devices s…
    Shareholders may not generally be prohibited from merely carrying mobile phones …
    Read more
    ADVANT Beiten Advises Dusseldorf-Based MedTech Company CUREosity Again on Financing Round
    Dusseldorf, 2 July 2024 – The international commercial law firm ADVANT Beiten has advised CUREosity GmbH, Dusseldorf, on a growth financing round which brought the medtech company a total of approximately …
    Read more
    ADVANT Beiten Advises Aesculap on Sale of TETEC AG to the Canadian Octane Group
    Dusseldorf, 26 June 2024 – The international law firm ADVANT Beiten has provided interdisciplinary advice to Aesculap AG, a subsidiary of the B. Braun group seated in Melsungen, Germany, on the sale of its…
    Read more
    Infringement of Shareholders' Attendance Rights
    Schleswig Higher Regional Court (OLG), judgment of 07 February 2024 – 9 U 41/23 The right of shareholders to attend the annual general meeting (AGM) of a stock corporation is a fundamental and generally a…
    Read more
    EU Supply Chain Act finalized - relevant for companies worldwide
    It did indeed take quite a while. And there was indeed a lot of back and forth. But now, it is final and binding: Today, the European Council gave its final green light for the so-called EU Corporate Sust…
    Read more
    Liability of Managing Director Despite Formal Approval of Past Actions?
    Brandenburg Higher Regional Court, judgment of 24 January 2024 – 7 U 2/23 A managing director is personally liable to the company if the director negligently or wilfully violates their responsibilities, r…
    Read more
    Boycotting the Supervisory Board by Permanent Absence? – Federal Court of Justice Rejects Appointment by Court
    The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) takes the stance that a supervisory board member boycotting the board by repeatedly being absent does not give rise to the right to have an additional member appoi…
    Read more