Skip to main content
Ad-hoc announcements

KB Holding GmbH’s appeal dismissed – capital increase …

By 28. November 2024December 2nd, 2024No Comments

KB Holding GmbH’s appeal dismissed – capital increase of 18th February, 2021 upheld

The Munich Higher Regional Court has dismissed the appeal of KB Holding GmbH against the decision of the Munich Local Court, Registry Court, of 30 November 2023, by which the application of KB Holding GmbH for deletion of the register entry of 18 February 2021 (capital increase from authorised capital, entry no. 24) of UMT United Mobility Technology AG was rejected.

In its decision of 27 November 2024, the Munich Higher Regional Court did not allow the appeal on points of law. It is therefore legally binding that the register entry of 18 February 2021 (capital increase from authorised capital, entry no. 24) is valid.

Please refer to the ad hoc announcement of 19 December 2023 for the decision of the Munich Local Court, Registry Court, of 30 November 2023. KB Holding GmbH filed an appeal against the decision of 30 November 2023. This appeal has now been dismissed by the Munich Higher Regional Court in a ruling dated 27 November 2024 (case no. of the Munich Higher Regional Court: 31 Wx 14/24 e). The appeal by KB Holding GmbH was dismissed as inadmissible because KB Holding GmbH was not entitled to appeal. Only those parties whose own substantive rights are affected by the decision are entitled to appeal against the refusal to cancel an official cancellation. However, this was not the case for KB Holding GmbH and in particular did not result from its position as a shareholder. If the official cancellation procedure ends with the result that no cancellation takes place, an appeal by the shareholder is not admissible.

The decision of the Higher Regional Court of Munich dated 27 November 2024 was preceded by a reference decision of the Higher Regional Court of Munich dated 23 October 2024. In this decision, the ruling senate not only pointed out that KB Holding GmbH was not entitled to appeal, but also that the appeal was likely unfounded because the entry in the register dated 18 February 2021 could only be made under the conditions of Sec. February 2021 could only be deleted under the conditions of Section 398 FamFG, which supersedes Section 395 FamFG in this respect, so that a deletion of the register entry would only be possible if the resolution on the utilisation of the authorised capital would violate mandatory statutory provisions according to its content, which is not the case in the present case, however, and any procedural errors could not justify a deletion pursuant to Section 398 FamFG.