A shareholder instruction appears harmful or unlawful. This guide explains how management reviews the instruction and its responsibility under section 25 GmbHG.
Your shareholder dispute team
Dispute team for shareholders and managing directors
A shareholder dispute calls for corporate law, litigation strategy and commercial understanding from one team. Mag. Bernhard Brandauer is responsible for the legal advice; depending on the conflict, further specialised lawyers of the firm support safeguards, evidence, negotiations and court enforcement.
Contact the teamShareholders may propose or resolve a concrete measure for the management. If management considers that measure harmful to the company or unlawful, it must review the instruction and document its consequences for the GmbH. Referring to the shareholders’ wishes does not replace management’s own responsibility.
Section 25 GmbHG requires the care of a prudent businessperson. For an entrepreneurial decision, an adequate information base, a focus on the company’s benefit and the absence of improper interests are decisive. The instruction must therefore be assessed by its content, the information available and its economic effect before implementation.
Start with the exact content of the instruction. A request for an assessment, a specific resolution and an order to make an immediate payment carry different risk profiles. Secure the wording, reason, transaction and decision date.
Then describe the consequences for the GmbH. Consider costs, economic benefit, risks to company assets and any expected consideration. A general reference to the shareholders’ wishes does not answer these questions.
Management should record open issues before implementation. This keeps the information available, the alternatives considered and the basis for the decision traceable.
Section 25(1) GmbHG requires managing directors to apply the care of a prudent businessperson in managing the company. For an entrepreneurial decision, section 25(1a) identifies three central points: the decision must not be guided by improper interests, it must be based on adequate information and management must be allowed to assume that it serves the company’s benefit.
A shareholder instruction can trigger this review, but it does not remove it. The records must show what information the shareholders and management had and whether the proposed implementation can reasonably follow from it.
A defensible entrepreneurial assessment is not proved wrong by an unfavourable economic result alone. The assessment changes where important information is missing or a personal benefit becomes the decisive reason. Those distinctions belong in the decision file.
Where a managing director breaches their duties, section 25(2) GmbHG makes them liable to the company for the resulting loss. Management must therefore assess whether the requested measure may cause a specific breach and an asset loss for the GmbH.
Section 25(3) GmbHG identifies, among other cases, the distribution of company assets contrary to the Act or the articles. In such a case, recording the shareholder resolution alone is not enough to explain the payment.
Section 25(5) GmbHG adds a specific limit concerning satisfaction of creditors. The managing directors’ replacement obligation is not removed to the extent that replacement is required to satisfy creditors, even where management acted in compliance with a shareholder resolution. The instruction is therefore not a blanket liability shield.
For a payment or transaction with a shareholder, the legal basis and economic recipient must be clear. Review the agreement, resolution, consideration, payment trail and accounting entry. Calling the amount an expense or distribution does not by itself establish that it is lawful.
A personal interest requires especially careful documentation. Section 25(1a) GmbHG requires that the entrepreneurial decision not be guided by improper interests. A participant’s personal benefit must therefore be distinguished from a comprehensible benefit for the GmbH.
If an instruction appears harmful to the company, management should record its objections, requested corrections and decision on further implementation. A clear rejection or reasoned suspension can be assessed later more easily than an unexplained payment.
Keep the instruction or resolution, agenda and minutes, articles, agreements, valuations, payment records and internal communications. Add the people involved and the date of each review step.
For a liability review, record the instruction, breach, loss and connection between the decision and the loss separately. A poor result alone does not prove liability. A formally clear instruction also cannot replace a missing information basis or justify a prohibited asset transfer.
The article on managing director liability and unknown claims explains why claim ownership, information and records must be separated. The same structure helps when a shareholder instruction reveals a company loss only later.
If the instruction is unclear, request the missing information and legal basis first. If the review supports implementation, record the conditions and carry it out consistently. If the instruction appears unlawful or harmful, record the objection, rejection and steps taken to protect company assets.
The resolution history must be kept separate from the liability review. Check independently whether a resolution was validly adopted, who may act for the GmbH and which company claims may arise from the specific measure.
The article on GmbH discharge and liability explains the separate effect of discharge and voting exclusion. For the instruction, the decisive question remains whether management acted on an adequate basis for the benefit of the GmbH.
You can receive new legal information through BRANDaktuelle Rechtsnews. A case-specific review requires the complete instruction, resolution records and economic documents.
An instruction must be reviewed before implementation. Its content, legal basis, information base and effect on the GmbH must be clarified. Where a breach or company loss is possible, objections and the next implementation step must be documented.
No. A resolution is not a blanket liability shield. Section 25 GmbHG remains relevant to care, breach and loss. Section 25(5) expressly preserves the replacement obligation required for satisfaction of creditors.
The instruction or resolution, articles, agreements, valuations, payment and accounting records, minutes, the people involved and communications about risks and consideration.
Safeguard, challenge and enforce shareholder disputes. Portal for active GmbH conflicts covering first safeguards, resolution challenge, exclusion and preliminary injunction.
Contact