[DECISION] TDF to change statutes following a Federal Court of Justice decision

Hello,

the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-06-14, is now made public in accordance with our statutes.

Participants to the vote were (in alphabetical order):
Ayhan, Caolan, Cor, Emiliano, Kendy, Laszlo, Paolo, Thorsten

The German Federal Court of Justice decided (in judgement of 15 April
2021, case number III ZR 139/20, [1]) that the following clause in the
statutes of a non-profit foundation effectively hinders third parties
to contract to its detriment: “Der Vorstand ist in seiner
Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”(non-binding
translation “The Board of Directors is limited in its power of
representation by the purpose of the Foundation.”).

In order to protect The Document Foundation this clause therefore
should be placed in the statutes [1] in § 8 section 1 which shall then
read:
Ҥ 8 Aufgaben des Vorstandes
(1) Der Vorstand entscheidet in allen grundsätzlichen Angelegenheiten
nach Maßgabe der Satzung in eigener Verantwortung und führt die
laufenden Geschäfte der Stiftung. Der Vorstand hat die Stellung eines
gesetzlichen Vertreters und vertritt die Stiftung gerichtlich und
außergerichtlich. Der Vorstand ist in seiner Vertretungsmacht durch den
Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt. Die Vertretung der Stiftung erfolgt
durch zwei Vorstandsmitglieder, von denen eines der Vorsitzende oder
der stellvertretende Vorsitzende sein muss. In dieser Weise kann für
bestimmte Geschäfte Einzelbevollmächtigung erteilt werden. Im
Innenverhältnis ist der stellvertretende Vorsitzende gehalten, nurbei
Verhinderung des Vorsitzenden tätig zu werden.”

Non-binding translation [3]:
"§ 8 Tasks of the Board of Directors
(1) The Board of Directors decides on all fundamental matters on its
own authority in accordance with the Articles and conducts the ongoing
business of the foundation. The Board of Directors has the status of a
legal representative and represents the foundation in and out of court.
The Board of Directors is limited in its power of representation by the
purpose of the Foundation. The foundation shall be represented by two
members of the Board of Directors, one of whom must be the chairman or
vice-chairman. Individual empowerment may be granted for certain
transactions in this way. The vice chairman will take action on
internal matters only if the chairman is unavailable."

In accordance with § 14 statutes the Board of Directors should make
this change to the statutes as it does not affect the foundation’s
goals and does not alter the original design of the foundation or
facilitates the fulfilment of the foundation’s goals. The change of the
statutes only becomes effective upon approval by the Foundation
Supervisory Authority.

This vote is proposed by all members of the legal subcommittee: Caolán,
Emiliano, Paolo.
This vote runs 72 hours from now on.

[1]
https://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&sid=69a429d192b32e52aa408ebee0d476d6&nr=119437
[2] German original https://www.documentfoundation.org/satzung.pdf
[3] non-binding translation
https://www.documentfoundation.org/statutes.pdf

The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat holders (not including deputies). In order to be quorate, the vote needs to have 1/2 or more of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4.

A total of 7 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.

The vote is quorate.

A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 4 votes.

Result of vote: 5 approvals, 2 abstain, 0 disapprovals.
Decision: The proposal has been accepted.

One deputy supports the motion.

Florian

Hi Florian,

Interesting decision by the BGH.

Did I misread, or isn't the impugned clause (“Der Vorstand ist in seiner Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”) still present in the amended version ?

If so, how is that now different to the previous situation (other than what follows this sentence with regard to how legal representation by the Board is effected) ?

My question is one purely of professional curiosity, as a lawyer, trying to understand the ratio decidendi as to why the change was felt necessary.

Alex

Hi Alex,

Alexander Thurgood wrote:

Did I misread, or isn't the impugned clause (“Der Vorstand ist in seiner
Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”) still present in
the amended version ?

That clause got added - it wasn't there before.

My question is one purely of professional curiosity, as a lawyer,
trying to understand the ratio decidendi as to why the change was
felt necessary.

In the cited decision, that clause helped to strike down a contract as
invalid, that would have otherwise been harmful to that other
foundation.

Best, Thorsten

Thanks Thorsten :+1:

Alex