{"id":14547,"date":"2026-09-17T06:32:52","date_gmt":"2026-09-17T06:32:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?p=14547"},"modified":"2026-09-17T06:32:52","modified_gmt":"2026-09-17T06:32:52","slug":"gesellschafterstreit-in-der-gmbh","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/shareholder-dispute-in-the-gmbh\/","title":{"rendered":"Shareholder dispute in a limited liability company (GmbH): exclusion, severance payment and deadlines"},"content":{"rendered":"<section id=\"hero\" data-elementor=\"hero\">\n<p class=\"lead\">When shareholders of a GmbH quarrel, this article focuses on three legal areas that most frequently play the decisive role in advisory practice: the contesting of shareholder resolutions, the exclusion or compulsory withdrawal of a shareholder, and the valuation of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/severance-pay-in-labour-law-what-you-are-really-entitled-to\/\">Severance payment<\/a>. In addition to these core topics, we cover important special constellations \u2013 the deadlock in a two-person GmbH, the relationship between the role of managing director and the status of shareholder, the information rights of the minority shareholder and the amicable exit.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"auf-einen-blick\" class=\"mth-fact-box\" data-elementor=\"auf-einen-blick\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Auf_einen_Blick\"><\/span>At a glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"mth-checklist\">\n<li><strong>Challenging a resolution:<\/strong>\u00a0Void and voidable resolutions must be distinguished. Nullity concerns particularly severe defects; all other procedural and substantive violations lead to voidability.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Limitation period for challenge:<\/strong>\u00a0Generally act within a month of passing the resolution. The Federal Court of Justice has confirmed this period as the standard (decision of 13.07.2009, II ZR 272\/08); exceeded only in compelling circumstances.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Voting bans Section 47(4) GmbHG:<\/strong>\u00a0The shareholder concerned may not vote on matters relating to the discharge of his liability, his release from a liability, the conclusion of a legal transaction with him, or the initiation or settlement of legal proceedings against him.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Forfeiture pursuant to Section 34 of the GmbHG:<\/strong>\u00a0Only permissible if the articles of association allow it. Compulsory redemption (without the consent of the person concerned) additionally requires that the prerequisites were included in the articles of association prior to the acquisition of the share (\u00a7 34 para. 2 GmbHG).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Capital maintenance:<\/strong>\u00a0A resolution for withdrawal is void if it is already apparent at the time the resolution is passed that the severance payment cannot be made from the free assets of the company (BGH, judgment of 10.05.2016, II ZR 342\/14).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Action for expulsion for good cause:<\/strong>\u00a0Ultima ratio. In the two-person GmbH, the other shareholder can bring the action by way of an actio pro socio (BGH, judgment of 11.07.2023, II ZR 116\/21).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Severance pay:<\/strong>\u00a0Without an effective articles of association clause, the economic full value applies. The effectiveness of contractual clauses is assessed according to two categories of cases: initial disproportion (Section 138 of the German Civil Code (BGB)) and subsequent disproportion (supplementary interpretation of contract; Federal Court of Justice (BGH), judgment of 27.09.2011, II ZR 279\/09).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"erste-schritte\" data-elementor=\"erste-schritte\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Gesellschafterstreit_Was_sollten_Sie_zuerst_tun\"><\/span>Shareholder dispute: What should you do first?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Before deciding on lawsuits and rulings, gain clarity on the formal foundations. The case is frequently decided where deadlines and evidence are secured \u2013 not where the loudest argument is made.<\/p>\n<ul class=\"mth-checklist\">\n<li>Retrieve the current articles of association, including all amendments and ancillary agreements (shareholders' agreement, pooling agreement).<\/li>\n<li>Check the current shareholder list at the commercial register (Section 16 of the German Limited Liability Companies Act (GmbHG)): It legitimises the holder in relation to the company.<\/li>\n<li>Secure the invitation to the shareholders' meeting, agenda, draft resolutions and minutes; document timestamps.<\/li>\n<li>Legally categorise the subject matter of the dispute: passing of resolutions, legal status of a shareholder, right to information or claim for payment.<\/li>\n<li>Calculating deadlines: the one-month period applies as a rule for the action for annulment (see below).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"beschlussanfechtung\" data-elementor=\"beschlussanfechtung\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"GmbH-Beschluss_anfechten_Grunde_und_Frist\"><\/span>Challenging a GmbH resolution: grounds and time limit<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Unlike the law governing public limited companies, the GmbHG does not contain any specific provisions regarding the invalidity of resolutions. Case law applies sections 241 et seq. of the AktG by analogy. A distinction must be made between nullity and voidability.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Nichtigkeit\"><\/span>nullity<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Null and void resolutions are invalid from the outset. In principle, nullity can be established in court at any time without a time limit; however, \u00a7 242 AktG (by analogy) provides opportunities for cure, in particular through the passage of time in the case of certain defects and through subsequent registration. Typical grounds for nullity are the lack of a valid convening notice, the violation of notarisation requirements for resolutions amending the articles of association, and resolutions with content contrary to public policy. Not every violation of the law leads to nullity; minor violations remain in the realm of voidability.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Anfechtbarkeit\"><\/span>Contestability<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Voidable resolutions are initially valid. Their validity only ends when a court determines them to be void in response to a voidance action brought within the time limit; this determination generally takes effect retroactively to the time the resolution was passed. Grounds for voidance include breaches of procedural rules, violations of the duty of loyalty, the exercise of voting rights despite a voting ban, and substantive defects below the threshold of absolute nullity.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Anfechtungsfrist\"><\/span>limitation period for challenge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Basically, the action for annulment must\u00a0<strong>within a month<\/strong>\u00a0be raised after the resolution has been passed. The Federal Court of Justice has expressly confirmed this rule for the GmbH (resolution of 13.07.2009, II ZR 272\/08). If the articles of association provide for a different period, that period shall apply. Exceeding the one-month period is only permissible in the event of compelling circumstances; the personal or capital structure of the company does not, in itself, justify any delay. Important: The fundamental grounds for the action must also, as a matter of principle, be introduced within the time limit \u2013 a subsequent submission of new grounds of attack is strictly limited.<\/p>\n<p>The start of the deadline is itself subject to review. In the event of an improperly determined resolution or delayed minuting, it may be postponed. Anyone who relies on waiting for minutes generally takes a high risk. Have the start of the deadline and the grounds for action reviewed by a lawyer at an early stage.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Verfahren\"><\/span>Procedure<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Jurisdiction for actions for avoidance and nullity lies with the Regional Court (Landgericht) at the company\u2019s registered office; jurisdiction is derived from the analogous application of Section 246(3) of the German Stock Corporation Act (AktG). If the competent Regional Court has a commercial division (Kammer f\u00fcr Handelssachen), this division generally has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning defective resolutions; the claimant's choice is irrelevant in this regard. Representation by a lawyer (Anwaltszwang) is compulsory before the Regional Court. The action is brought against the GmbH itself. Until a final and non-appealable decision is reached, the contested resolution remains provisionally effective; interim relief is possible, but is subject to strict requirements.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"stimmverbote\" data-elementor=\"stimmverbote\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Stimmverbote_nach_%C2%A7_47_Abs_4_GmbHG\"><\/span>Voting prohibitions under Section 47 (4) of the German Limited Liability Companies Act (GmbHG)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>A blanket voting ban \u201eon one's own behalf\u201c does not exist in German LLC law. Personal interest alone does not trigger a voting ban. Section 47(4) of the German LLC Act (GmbHG) rather regulates four specific constellations in which a shareholder is not permitted to vote:<\/p>\n<ul class=\"mth-checklist\">\n<li>Passing a resolution on the\u00a0<strong>Relief<\/strong>\u00a0of the shareholder concerned.<\/li>\n<li>Decision on his\u00a0<strong>Release from a liability<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Passing a resolution on the\u00a0<strong>conclusion of a legal transaction<\/strong>\u00a0with him.<\/li>\n<li>Passing a resolution on the\u00a0<strong>Initiation or settlement of a legal dispute<\/strong>\u00a0opposite him.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The standard also covers the exercise of voting rights as a proxy for another shareholder: whoever is personally excluded from voting may not exercise the voting right as a representative of another shareholder either. Furthermore, case law extends the categories of cases to constellations in which the shareholder is formally a third party, but is economically voting in their own interest. When adopting a resolution on the forfeiture of a share, a voting ban for the affected shareholder does not automatically apply in every case; the decisive factors are the specific reason for forfeiture and the question of whether it is a sanction against the shareholder personally.<\/p>\n<p>As for the practical consequences, it depends on the specific resolution. If votes are counted despite a prohibition, the resolution is voidable. Without the excluded votes, a different majority frequently emerges; in this situation, alongside an action for annulment, a positive action for declaratory judgement regarding the resolution may be considered. However, it is not the correct instrument in every voting rights dispute \u2013 the course and objective must be examined on a case-by-case basis.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"einziehung\" data-elementor=\"einziehung\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Einziehung_des_Geschaftsanteils_nach_%C2%A7_34_GmbHG\"><\/span>Forfeiture of the company share pursuant to Section 34 of the GmbHG<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Compulsory withdrawal is practically the most important way to remove a shareholder from a GmbH against their will. It is in\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.gesetze-im-internet.de\/gmbhg\/__34.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Section 34 GmbHG<\/a>\u00a0regulated and links to four stages of review: eligibility in principle, adoption of the resolution, capital maintenance and time of effectiveness.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Zulassigkeit_dem_Grunde_nach\"><\/span>liability in principle<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Compulsory withdrawal is only permissible if the articles of association permit it and specify the requirements for it (\u00a7 34 para. 1 GmbHG). A further fundamental requirement is that the share in question must generally be fully paid up; according to prevailing opinion, the compulsory withdrawal of shares that are not fully paid up is only permissible with the consent of the shareholder. Otherwise, two categories of cases must be distinguished:<\/p>\n<ul class=\"mth-checklist\">\n<li><strong>Consensual confiscation:<\/strong>\u00a0The affected shareholder agrees with her.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Conscription<\/strong>\u00a0Without the consent of the data subject, the confiscation is only permissible if its prerequisites\u00a0<em>before<\/em>\u00a0were stipulated in the articles of association for the acquisition of the company share by the shareholder concerned (Section 34(2) GmbHG). Subsequent amendments to the articles of association to the detriment of an existing shareholder require a careful examination of consent.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Common grounds for forfeiture are insolvency or attachment of the company share, the death of the shareholder with a corresponding succession clause, and the existence of good cause relating to the person of the shareholder.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Kapitalerhaltung_die_entscheidende_Wirksamkeitsvoraussetzung\"><\/span>Capital maintenance: the decisive effectiveness prerequisite<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The confiscation order is\u00a0<strong>void<\/strong>, if it is already apparent at the time the resolution is passed that the compensation cannot be paid from the free assets of the company without encroaching on the share capital. The Federal Court of Justice explicitly clarified this in a judgment dated 10.05.2016 (II ZR 342\/14); the basis for this is the combination of Section 34(3) and Section 30(1) of the German Limited Liability Companies Act (GmbHG). A mere reference to subsequent payment is not sufficient if the financial solvency of the company was not given even at the time the resolution was passed.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, before a redemption is resolved upon, the company's financial and earnings position, the payout modalities set out in the articles of association, and the specific amount of compensation to be expected should be examined.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Wirksamkeitszeitpunkt\"><\/span>Effective date<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The resolution on forfeiture generally becomes effective upon notification to the affected shareholder. Validly agreed conditions can, however, postpone this point in time \u2013 for example, a clause that links the effectiveness to the full payment of the compensation or a security. The share ceases to exist upon the effectiveness occurring as determined in this way.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Personliche_Haftung_der_Mitgesellschafter\"><\/span>Personal liability of the co-partners<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>If the company cannot pay the severance payment out of its unencumbered assets, this does not automatically result in personal liability for the remaining partners. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) requires a continuation of the company in breach of trust without appropriate measures to satisfy the severance claim (II ZR 342\/14). Therefore, anyone who supports the redemption should examine and document solvency and, if necessary, agree on securities or payout modalities.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"ausschlussklage\" data-elementor=\"ausschlussklage\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Ausschluss_aus_wichtigem_Grund\"><\/span>Dismissal for a good reason<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>If a redemption is not provided for in the articles of association or fails because its prerequisites are not met, an exclusion claim for good cause may be considered. It leads to the loss of shareholder status by judicial judgment.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Wichtiger_Grund\"><\/span>Important reason<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Good cause exists if, weighing all circumstances, the company or the other shareholders can no longer reasonably be expected to continue the company relationship with the person concerned. A \u201epermanently disrupted relationship of trust\u201c alone does not automatically justify exclusion; what is required is that the loss of trust is attributable to the affected shareholder and an examination of whether milder means are sufficient. Examples include serious breaches of loyalty obligations (breaches of non-compete clauses, financial damage to the company, disclosure of trade secrets) and criminal offences to the detriment of the company.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Ausschluss_als_ultima_ratio\"><\/span>Exclusion as a last resort<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The exclusion is a last resort. Before filing a lawsuit, it must be examined whether less severe measures\u2014such as the revocation of a shareholder-managing director's appointment, requirements for approval, a court-ordered injunction, or an out-of-court settlement\u2014are an option. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) explicitly emphasised these requirements in its recent case law (judgment of 11.07.2023, II ZR 116\/21).<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Klagebefugnis\"><\/span>Standing to sue<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>As a rule, the exclusion claim is brought by the company. This is conditional upon a corresponding resolution by the shareholders' meeting, in which the person concerned may not vote pursuant to Section 47 (4) of the German Limited Liability Companies Act (GmbHG). For the\u00a0<strong>two-person GmbH<\/strong>\u00a0an important exception is recognised: the fellow shareholder can bring the action by way of\u00a0<em>actio pro socio<\/em>\u00a0self-advocate (BGH II ZR 116\/21). This resolves the practical deadlock that would arise if the company could only form a quorum with the votes of the person concerned.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Wirksamkeit\"><\/span>Efficacy<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The exclusion pronounced by the judgement becomes effective when the judgement becomes legally binding. The payment of the compensation is not a prerequisite for effectiveness; it is a separate claim to payment, the amount of which is determined according to the principles of the law governing severance payments. However, the action for exclusion also does not bypass capital maintenance: a judgement of exclusion may not be handed down if it is established that the compensation cannot be paid without breaching Section 30 of the German Limited Liability Companies Act (GmbHG).<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"abfindung\" data-elementor=\"abfindung\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Abfindung_Wie_wird_der_Anteilswert_ermittelt\"><\/span>Severance payment: How is the share value determined?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Whether and to what extent the departing shareholder receives a severance payment depends on the reason for departure and the partnership agreement.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Grundsatz_wirtschaftlicher_Vollwert\"><\/span>Principle: economic full value<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Without an effective provision in the articles of association, the company owes compensation amounting to the market value of the company share. The market value is determined on the basis of the enterprise value at the time of withdrawal. The capitalized earnings method is recognised in particular; the valuation standard IDW S 1 of the Institute of Public Auditors in Germany is frequently used to determine the enterprise value. IDW S 1 is not an industry-specific, but a general professional standard, the application of which can be adapted and supplemented in individual cases. The market value can diverge significantly from the balance sheet book value or the nominal value of the share.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Vertragliche_Abfindungsklauseln\"><\/span>Contractual severance clauses<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In practice, partnership agreements almost invariably regulate severance payments themselves. Common models are the book value clause, the yield value clause and hybrid forms involving discounts; these are frequently supplemented by due date and interest clauses.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Wirksamkeitsgrenzen_zwei_Fallgruppen\"><\/span>Limits of effectiveness: two categories of cases<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Federal Court of Justice has expressly separated two situations regarding the review of contractual severance clauses (judgment of 27 September 2011, II ZR 279\/09):<\/p>\n<div class=\"mth-table-wrap\">\n<table class=\"mth-comparison-table\">\n<caption>Control of severance clauses \u2013 two categories of cases<\/caption>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"col\">Initial situation<\/th>\n<th scope=\"col\">Legal consequence<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Clause is already grossly disproportionate at the time of its agreement<\/th>\n<td>Nullity pursuant to Section 138 of the German Civil Code (BGB) may be considered. The starting point for the severance payment owed in that event is the economic full value, within the scope of the contractual obligations.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Clause is initially effective, but becomes a gross disparity through societal development<\/th>\n<td>Supplementary interpretation of contract. The adjustment follows the hypothetical intent of the contracting parties; it does not automatically lead to the full market value.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<p>In practice, this means that anyone wishing to challenge or defend a severance clause must carefully determine the point in time for the assessment. Simply comparing the contractually agreed severance payment with the current market value is not legally sufficient. A differentiated approach that takes into account the conclusion of the contract and subsequent developments is frequently required.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Falligkeit_Verzinsung_und_Zahlungsgrenzen\"><\/span>Maturity, interest and payment deadlines<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The due date is initially determined by the partnership agreement. Payment in instalments, interest and securities are the subject of the clause. A distinction must be made between contractually agreed interest and statutory default or litigation interest; the prerequisites differ (\u00a7 286 BGB, \u00a7 288 BGB, \u00a7 291 BGB).<\/p>\n<p>An undisputed partial amount is not automatically to be paid out. Payment presupposes that the debt is due and must not violate the capital maintenance rules (\u00a7 30 para. 1 GmbHG); any pleas \u2013 such as set-off or retention \u2013 must also be taken into account. In litigation practice, initially only a secured partial amount is frequently paid, while the remainder of the dispute is clarified in court proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"sonderkonstellationen\" data-elementor=\"sonderkonstellationen\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Sonderkonstellationen\"><\/span>special constellations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"5050-GmbH_die_Pattsituation\"><\/span>50\/50 GmbH: the deadlock<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In the two-person GmbH with equal voting rights, practically significant deadlocks arise. Resolutions on the approval of the annual financial statements and the appropriation of profits cannot be passed without agreement. However, when discharging a shareholder-managing director and when dismissing them for good cause, voting prohibitions pursuant to Section 47 (4) of the German Limited Liability Companies Act (GmbHG) frequently apply; in these cases, there is no genuine stalemate. There is no automatic mechanism for exclusion in any case: whoever wants to get rid of the other must observe the usual requirements for redemption or an exclusion action. In this constellation, the exclusion action by way of an *actio pro socio* pursuant to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling II ZR 116\/21 assumes particular importance. Additionally, the action for dissolution for good cause and an amicable separation via the sale of shares come into consideration.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Geschaftsfuhrer_und_Gesellschafter_zwei_getrennte_Ebenen\"><\/span>Managing director and shareholder: two separate levels<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The office of managing director and the position of shareholder must be legally separated. The dismissal of the managing director according to\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.gesetze-im-internet.de\/gmbhg\/__38.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Section 38 GmbHG<\/a>\u00a0only terminates the corporate office; the shareholder position remains unaffected. Frequently, there is also an employment contract governing the service relationship; this must be assessed and terminated separately. Anyone wishing to resolve the conflict solely by revocation achieves only a reduction in operational friction \u2013 the shareholder dispute as such remains.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Auskunfts-_und_Einsichtsrechte_des_Gesellschafters\"><\/span>Rights of information and inspection of the shareholder<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>After\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.gesetze-im-internet.de\/gmbhg\/__51a.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Section 51a of the German Limited Liability Companies Act (GmbHG)<\/a>\u00a0every shareholder has the right to prompt information regarding the affairs of the company and to inspect its books and records. This right serves not only to provide information: it is frequently the practical key to substantiating suspicions and establishing a dispute on a viable factual basis. If the information is refused, information enforcement proceedings may be considered. Restrictions only apply under strict conditions.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Gesellschafterliste_und_Legitimation\"><\/span>List of shareholders and legal identity<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The list of shareholders entered in the commercial register has a legitimising effect: whoever is entered in the list is deemed to be a shareholder vis-\u00e0-vis the GmbH (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.gesetze-im-internet.de\/gmbhg\/__16.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Section 16 of the GmbHG<\/a>Changes to the list \u2013 such as following a resolution for withdrawal or a transfer of shares \u2013 have practical significance during the dispute: they can affect the exercise of voting rights, participation in shareholders' meetings and the distribution of profits. The objection pursuant to Section 16 (3) of the GmbHG essentially prevents the bona fide acquisition of the company share; however, it does not preserve the shareholder rights themselves. In urgent cases, an interim injunction against the filing of an amended list may therefore be necessary.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Einvernehmlicher_Ausstieg\"><\/span>Mutual exit<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The dispute does not always have to end in litigation. A share sale, a waiver and settlement agreement, or an expert determination clause frequently offers a quicker, more confidential solution\u2014particularly in closely held companies. Even if one party insists on a contentious resolution, it is worth examining what economic and legal position can be achieved in negotiations.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"handlungsoptionen\" data-elementor=\"handlungsoptionen\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Handlungsoptionen_im_Uberblick\"><\/span>Options for action at a glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Choosing the right path depends on the objective, legal basis and economic starting position. The following overview categorises the four most common options:<\/p>\n<div class=\"mth-table-wrap\">\n<table class=\"mth-comparison-table\">\n<caption>Options for action in a dispute between GmbH shareholders<\/caption>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"col\">Option<\/th>\n<th scope=\"col\">Prerequisites<\/th>\n<th scope=\"col\">Procedure<\/th>\n<th scope=\"col\">Effect<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Challenge of a resolution<\/th>\n<td>Vulnerable resolution (nullity or voidability)<\/td>\n<td>Lawsuit before the Regional Court, generally within one month (BGH II ZR 272\/08)<\/td>\n<td>Declaration of invalidity; retroactive effect<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Forfeiture pursuant to section 34 of the German Limited Liability Companies Act (GmbHG)<\/th>\n<td>Authorisation in the articles of association; conditions precedent for compulsory redemption prior to share acquisition; capital maintenance<\/td>\n<td>Resolution of the shareholders' meeting without the votes of the person concerned; notification<\/td>\n<td>Extinction of the share; separate claim for compensation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">action for exclusion for a good cause<\/th>\n<td>Important reason, ultima ratio; in the two-person GmbH actio pro socio (BGH II ZR 116\/21)<\/td>\n<td>Action brought by the company or \u2013 in the case of a two-person company \u2013 by the co-shareholder<\/td>\n<td>exclusion upon the judgment becoming final; separate claim for severance pay<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">Amicable share sale<\/th>\n<td>Agreement of the parties; notarisation pursuant to Section 15(3) of the German Limited Liability Companies Act (GmbHG)<\/td>\n<td>negotiation, where appropriate mediation or expert determination<\/td>\n<td>Transfer of the share at the agreed purchase price; no court proceedings<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"kosten\" data-elementor=\"kosten\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Kosten_und_wirtschaftliche_Verhaltnismasigkeit\"><\/span>Costs and economic proportionality<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>A shareholder dispute is financially demanding. Lawyer's fees, court costs and \u2013 frequently \u2013 a valuation report drive up the procedural costs. Guidelines for cost planning:<\/p>\n<ul class=\"mth-checklist\">\n<li><strong>Value in dispute:<\/strong>\u00a0In revocation actions, he aligns himself with the parties' economic interest in the contested resolution; in exclusion and severance disputes, with the market value of the share. The amount in dispute determines the court costs and the lawyers' remuneration pursuant to the RVG.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Expert opinion:<\/strong>\u00a0In the event of a disputed valuation, costs for an expert opinion regularly arise. In court proceedings, the expert opinion is commissioned by the court; the allocation of costs follows the outcome of the proceedings.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Parallel proceedings:<\/strong>\u00a0Challenge, exclusion and severance proceedings can run concurrently. The legal strategy should coordinate them to limit costs.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Proportionality:<\/strong>\u00a0Whether legal proceedings make economic sense depends on the prospects of success, the value in dispute and the duration of the proceedings. In the case of smaller holdings, an amicable exit can be cheaper than a multi-year lawsuit.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>A reliable cost estimate is not possible without knowing the amount in dispute, the objective of the lawsuit and the course of the proceedings; these points will be clarified during the initial consultation.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"vorbereitung\" class=\"mth-fact-box\" data-elementor=\"vorbereitung\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Vorbereitungscheckliste_fur_das_Erstgesprach\"><\/span>Preparation checklist for the initial consultation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>To be able to assess the dispute legally, we require the following documents and information:<\/p>\n<ul class=\"mth-checklist\">\n<li>Current articles of association with all amendments; shareholder agreement and side agreements, if applicable;<\/li>\n<li>Current list of shareholders (commercial register extract);<\/li>\n<li>Notice, agenda and minutes of the relevant shareholders' meeting;<\/li>\n<li>Attendance list and voting result;<\/li>\n<li>Correspondence between the shareholders and with the management (emails, letters);<\/li>\n<li>Extract from the Commercial Register of the GmbH;<\/li>\n<li>Current annual financial statements and \u2013 where available \u2013 interim reports for economic evaluation;<\/li>\n<li>Overview of your objectives: Do you want to challenge a resolution, achieve or defend against an exclusion, or secure a severance payment?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"faq\" data-elementor=\"faq-accordion\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Haufige_Fragen\"><\/span>Frequently asked questions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<div class=\"mth-faq\">\n<div class=\"mth-faq-item\">\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Wie_schnell_muss_ich_einen_GmbH-Beschluss_anfechten\"><\/span>How quickly do I have to challenge a GmbH resolution?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Generally within one month of the resolution being passed (Federal Court of Justice, decision of 13.07.2009, II ZR 272\/08), unless the articles of association provide for a different time limit. The main grounds for the action must also generally be introduced within this time limit. The commencement of the time limit and the grounds for the action should be reviewed by a lawyer at an early stage.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"mth-faq-item\">\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Darf_ich_als_Gesellschafter_uber_meine_eigene_Entlastung_mitstimmen\"><\/span>Am I, as a shareholder, allowed to vote on my own discharge?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>No. Section 47(4) of the GmbH Act excludes the voting right regarding one's own discharge from liability, the release from an obligation, legal transactions with the shareholder, and legal disputes against them. If the votes are nevertheless counted, the resolution is voidable.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"mth-faq-item\">\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Wann_ist_ein_Einziehungsbeschluss_nichtig\"><\/span>When is a resolution for withdrawal void?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The resolution for withdrawal is void if, even at the time the resolution is passed, it is already established that the severance payment cannot be paid from the free assets of the company without impairing the share capital (Federal Court of Justice, judgment of 10.05.2016, II ZR 342\/14; Section 34(3) in conjunction with Section 30(1) of the German Limited Liability Companies Act (GmbHG)). In addition to the preservation of capital, the statutory requirements for withdrawal and \u2013 in the case of compulsory withdrawal \u2013 their temporal existence prior to the acquisition of shares must be examined (Section 34(2) GmbHG).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"mth-faq-item\">\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Ist_eine_Buchwertklausel_im_Gesellschaftsvertrag_zulassig\"><\/span>Is a book value clause permissible in the articles of association?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In principle, yes. A distinction must be made between two categories of cases: if the clause is grossly disproportionate even at the time of agreement, nullity pursuant to Section 138 of the German Civil Code (BGB) may be considered. If an initially valid clause only becomes grossly disproportionate due to societal developments, adjustment by means of supplementary contract interpretation is possible (Federal Court of Justice, judgment of 27.09.2011, II ZR 279\/09). The legal consequence of such an adjustment is not automatically the full market value.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"mth-faq-item\">\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Kann_in_einer_Zwei-Personen-GmbH_ein_Gesellschafter_ohne_Beschluss_der_Gesellschaft_geklagt_werden\"><\/span>Can a shareholder in a two-person GmbH be sued without a resolution of the company?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Yes. In a judgement dated 11 July 2023 (II ZR 116\/21), the Federal Court of Justice expressly recognised that in a two-person GmbH, the co-shareholder can bring an action for exclusion by way of an actio pro socio. This resolves the deadlock that would arise if the company were only authorised to sue with the votes of the person concerned.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"mth-faq-item\">\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Was_passiert_mit_meiner_Gesellschafterstellung_wenn_ich_als_Geschaftsfuhrer_abberufen_werde\"><\/span>What happens to my shareholder status if I am dismissed as managing director?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Nothing immediately. Dismissal pursuant to Section 38 of the GmbHG (German Limited Liability Company Act) only terminates the corporate office; the status as a shareholder remains unaffected. The employment contract must be examined separately and terminated independently if necessary.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"mth-faq-item\">\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Welche_Auskunftsrechte_habe_ich_als_Minderheitsgesellschafter\"><\/span>What rights to information do I have as a minority shareholder?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Under Section 51a of the German Limited Liability Companies Act (GmbHG), every shareholder is entitled to prompt information regarding company affairs and to inspect books and records. If the information is refused, court-ordered enforcement of the right to information may be considered. Restrictions apply only under strict conditions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"mth-faq-item\">\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Gibt_es_Alternativen_zum_Gerichtsverfahren\"><\/span>Are there any alternatives to court proceedings?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Yes. Mediation, expert determination and arbitration are common instruments. Many partnership agreements provide for corresponding clauses. A consensual sale of shares is also often the most economically sensible way.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"cta\" class=\"mth-cta-section\" data-elementor=\"cta\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Sie_stehen_vor_einem_Gesellschafterstreit\"><\/span>Are you facing a shareholder dispute?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>We represent shareholders and managing directors in contestation, exclusion and severance disputes. In the initial consultation, we clarify the legal starting position, organise deadlines and documented evidence, develop a procedural strategy and accompany out-of-court settlement just as much as litigation before the Regional Court. For an initial, non-binding contact, you can reach us by telephone, email or via our <a href=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/contact\/book-an-appointment\/\">Contact form<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"verwandte-beitraege\" data-elementor=\"verwandte-beitraege\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Weiterlesen\"><\/span>Read more<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"mth-checklist\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/services\/commercial-and-corporate-law\/\">Commercial and company law in Cologne<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 Overview of the firm's advisory and representation services in commercial and corporate law.<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/gmbh-formation-cologne-procedure-costs\/\">Forming a GmbH in Cologne: Procedure, Costs and Typical Mistakes<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 the drafting of the partnership agreement as a basis for avoiding future disputes.<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/legal-forms-compared\/\">Legal forms compared<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 systematic comparison of sole trader, partnership (GbR), general partnership (OHG), limited partnership (KG), entrepreneurial company (UG) and private limited company (GmbH).<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/ug-formation-process-costs\/\">Setting up a UG: Procedure, costs, share capital and mistakes<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 the UG as a variant of the GmbH and its corporate law specifics.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"autor\" data-elementor=\"autor-hinweise\">\n<div class=\"mth-author\">\n<p><strong>Author:<\/strong>\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/team-2\/attorney-at-law-tieben\/\">Lawyer Helmer Tieben<\/a>, Master of International Tax, University of Melbourne; admitted to the Cologne Bar since 2005. Office address: Sachsenring 34, 50677 Cologne.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Jurisdiction:<\/strong>\u00a0September 2026. This article will be updated in the event of relevant changes in legislation or case law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"mth-disclaimer\">\n<p><em>This post provides an overview of typical scenarios involving shareholder disputes in a German private limited company (GmbH) and does not replace a legal review of the individual case. The legal bases presented reflect the position at the time of publication; subsequent changes in legislation or case law may alter the assessment.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a shareholder dispute in a GmbH, deadlines, voting rights and the provisions of the articles of association are often decisive. The article explains the challenge of resolutions, the exclusion or withdrawal of a shareholder, the calculation of compensation and particular risks in a 50\/50 GmbH.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":14549,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14547","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-gesellschaftsrecht-anwalt"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gesellschafterstreit GmbH: Ausschluss, Abfindung &amp; Fristen<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Gesellschafterstreit in der GmbH: Erfahren Sie, wie Beschl\u00fcsse angefochten, Gesellschafter ausgeschlossen und Abfindungen berechnet werden.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/shareholder-dispute-in-the-gmbh\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gesellschafterstreit GmbH: Ausschluss, Abfindung &amp; Fristen\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Gesellschafterstreit in der GmbH: Erfahren Sie, wie Beschl\u00fcsse angefochten, Gesellschafter ausgeschlossen und Abfindungen berechnet werden.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/shareholder-dispute-in-the-gmbh\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-09-17T06:32:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/gesellschafterstreit-gmbh-boardroom.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1672\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"941\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Rusudan Tsiskreli\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@mth_Tieben\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@mth_Tieben\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Rusudan Tsiskreli\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shareholder dispute in a GmbH: exclusion, severance payment &amp; deadlines","description":"Shareholder dispute in a GmbH: Learn how resolutions are contested, shareholders are excluded and severance payments are calculated.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/shareholder-dispute-in-the-gmbh\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gesellschafterstreit GmbH: Ausschluss, Abfindung & Fristen","og_description":"Gesellschafterstreit in der GmbH: Erfahren Sie, wie Beschl\u00fcsse angefochten, Gesellschafter ausgeschlossen und Abfindungen berechnet werden.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/shareholder-dispute-in-the-gmbh\/","og_site_name":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178","article_published_time":"2026-09-17T06:32:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1672,"height":941,"url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/gesellschafterstreit-gmbh-boardroom.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"Rusudan Tsiskreli","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@mth_Tieben","twitter_site":"@mth_Tieben","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Rusudan Tsiskreli","Estimated reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/gesellschafterstreit-in-der-gmbh\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/gesellschafterstreit-in-der-gmbh\/"},"author":{"name":"Rusudan Tsiskreli","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/person\/d2c459eabbef5b8fac48b56903a1352b"},"headline":"Gesellschafterstreit in der GmbH: Ausschluss, Abfindung und Fristen","datePublished":"2026-09-17T06:32:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/gesellschafterstreit-in-der-gmbh\/"},"wordCount":3621,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/gesellschafterstreit-in-der-gmbh\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/gesellschafterstreit-gmbh-boardroom.webp","articleSection":["Gesellschaftsrecht"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/gesellschafterstreit-in-der-gmbh\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/gesellschafterstreit-in-der-gmbh\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/gesellschafterstreit-in-der-gmbh\/","name":"Shareholder dispute in a GmbH: exclusion, severance payment &amp; deadlines","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/gesellschafterstreit-in-der-gmbh\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/gesellschafterstreit-in-der-gmbh\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/gesellschafterstreit-gmbh-boardroom.webp","datePublished":"2026-09-17T06:32:52+00:00","description":"Shareholder dispute in a GmbH: Learn how resolutions are contested, shareholders are excluded and severance payments are calculated.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/gesellschafterstreit-in-der-gmbh\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/gesellschafterstreit-in-der-gmbh\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/gesellschafterstreit-in-der-gmbh\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/gesellschafterstreit-gmbh-boardroom.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/gesellschafterstreit-gmbh-boardroom.webp","width":1672,"height":941,"caption":"Leerer Konferenzraum in K\u00f6ln mit gegen\u00fcberstehenden St\u00fchlen als Symbol f\u00fcr einen Gesellschafterstreit in der GmbH"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/gesellschafterstreit-in-der-gmbh\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gesellschaftsrecht","item":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/category\/gesellschaftsrecht-anwalt\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Gesellschafterstreit in der GmbH: Ausschluss, Abfindung und Fristen"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/","name":"Law firm Tieben","description":"Lawyer Tieben \/ Law firm Cologne","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization","name":"Law firm Tieben","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/logo.png","width":254,"height":52,"caption":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178","https:\/\/x.com\/mth_Tieben","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/helmer-tieben-09570226"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/person\/d2c459eabbef5b8fac48b56903a1352b","name":"Rusudan Tsiskreli","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/aae86fe713f350bf29e8b863bdb1a530b7b9ab692c2b2be6c31bb39eb4fabfed?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/aae86fe713f350bf29e8b863bdb1a530b7b9ab692c2b2be6c31bb39eb4fabfed?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/aae86fe713f350bf29e8b863bdb1a530b7b9ab692c2b2be6c31bb39eb4fabfed?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Rusudan Tsiskreli"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14547","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14547"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14547\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14550,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14547\/revisions\/14550"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14549"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14547"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14547"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14547"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}