Defending Against Damages Claims and Corporate Liability
Claims for damages frequently strike private individuals, managing directors and board members without warning and can quickly reach existential dimensions. Schedule a confidential initial consultation before making any statements or responding to submissions.
Book an Appointment
Precise Liability Defence for Private Individuals and Corporate Officers
Typical Grounds for Claims at a Glance
Liability allegations are based on various grounds for claims, each of which requires its own lines of defence. We analyse each claim precisely, whether tortious liability under § 823 BGB, intentional damage contrary to public policy under § 826 BGB, unjust enrichment claims under § 812 BGB or corporate liability under § 43 GmbHG and § 93 AktG, and develop our strategy along the legal and factual points of attack.
The Business Judgment Rule and Exemption from Liability
The Business Judgment Rule (§ 93 (1) sentence 2 AktG) protects board members in the case of business decisions made on an adequate information basis, free from personal interests and for the benefit of the company. We document decision-making processes in such a way that the requirements can subsequently be demonstrated in a robust manner, and supplement this with classic lines of defence such as absence of fault (§ 276 BGB), contributory negligence (§ 254 BGB) and absence of causation.
D&O Insurance and Maximisation of Cover
D&O insurance is frequently the central protection for corporate officers against liability claims. We review the scope of cover based on the insurance conditions, ensure timely notification of the insured event and enforce cover even against insurers who take a negative position. We structure the claims notification in such a way that insurance cover is preserved to the greatest possible extent.
Liability Defence Drawing on Criminal Law Experience
Claims for damages frequently arise following criminal proceedings or are asserted in parallel with them. GLADICA Lawyers defends clients against damages claims with the same precision as in criminal proceedings. We analyse the grounds for claims, coordinate parallel proceedings and consistently pursue the limitation or defence of claims.
Comprehensive Defence Against Liability Claims
Our Services at a Glance
Legal assessment of asserted claims, in particular regarding the conditions of liability, the amount of damages and causation
Development of a coordinated defence strategy taking into account parallel criminal and civil proceedings
Coordination and strategic management of parallel proceedings, including suspension under § 149 ZPO
Defence against unjustified or inflated claims, in particular for compensation for pain and suffering and damages (§§ 823, 253 BGB)
Review and assertion of liability-limiting defences (e.g. contributory negligence, absence of causation, lawful alternative conduct)
Negotiation of out-of-court settlements for economically rational dispute resolution (§ 779 BGB)
Review and enforcement of insurance cover, in particular private liability insurance and D&O
Review and raising of limitation defences (§§ 195, 199 BGB)
Defence of managing directors and corporate officers against liability claims in connection with business decisions, including application of the Business Judgment Rule
Coordination Between Criminal and Civil Proceedings
Parallel criminal and civil proceedings require an integrated overall strategy. Statements made in civil proceedings can be used in criminal proceedings and, conversely, findings in criminal proceedings have considerable effect in civil litigation. We therefore coordinate all submissions, statements and negotiating positions closely across both sets of proceedings.
Ill-considered statements in civil proceedings can significantly prejudice the defence in criminal proceedings. We use the findings from the investigation files in a targeted manner for the civil law defence and avoid contradictory or prejudicial positions. In appropriate cases, suspension of the civil proceedings under § 149 ZPO may also be considered.
Limitation and Procedural Defences
Many liability claims already fail on grounds of limitation or formal defences. The standard limitation period is three years (§ 195 BGB) and commences at the end of the year in which the claim arose and the claimant knew or ought to have known of it (§ 199 BGB). In certain constellations, longer periods apply, for example five years under § 43 (4) GmbHG or ten years under § 93 (6) AktG.
We systematically examine every claim for limitation, lack of standing, formal requirements and other defences and deploy these in a targeted manner for the defence against claims.
Claims under § 823 (1) BGB require the infringement of an absolute legal interest such as physical integrity, health, freedom or property. § 823 (2) BGB extends liability to violations of protective statutes, for example § 263 StGB (fraud) or § 266 StGB (breach of trust). Claims for damages and compensation for pain and suffering following criminal offences asserted in parallel with criminal proceedings are typical. We examine causation, fault, the amount of damage and contributory negligence under § 254 BGB and develop a defence strategy that takes both sets of proceedings into account.
§ 826 BGB concerns cases in which a person intentionally causes damage to another in a manner contrary to public policy. Such claims are frequently asserted in cases of serious allegations such as targeted deception or unconscionable business practices. They are associated with high economic risks and are generally uninsured, as intentional conduct excludes insurance cover. We examine the existence of the constituent requirements, in particular the violation of public policy and intent, and develop targeted lines of defence.
Managing directors are personally liable to the company when they breach their duties and the company suffers damage as a result. A particular feature is that the burden of pleading and proof is partly shifted in favour of the company, which makes the defence demanding. The relevant factors include in particular duties of care, compliance requirements and business decisions. The limitation period is five years under § 43 (4) GmbHG. We examine breach of duty, causation and fault and deploy the Business Judgment Rule where its requirements are satisfied.
Board members are personally liable to the stock corporation for breaches of duty, in particular in connection with business decisions, compliance matters or risk-bearing transactions. The reversal of the burden of proof under § 93 (2) sentence 2 AktG substantially strengthens the position of the company. The limitation period is ten years under § 93 (6) AktG. The Business Judgment Rule (§ 93 (1) sentence 2 AktG) provides protection where the decision was made on an adequate information basis, without a conflict of interest and for the benefit of the company.
Supervisory board members are liable under § 116 in conjunction with § 93 AktG for breaches of their supervisory function. Typical liability risks arise from inadequate supervision of the board, violations of approval reservations or defective reports to the general meeting. The ten-year limitation period under § 93 (6) AktG applies here as well. We examine the scope of the supervisory duty, the specific breach of duty and the causation for the damage that has occurred.
Claims for unjust enrichment under § 812 BGB typically arise in cases of allegedly unjustified payments, disputed asset movements or erroneous transfers. In contrast to tortious liability, what matters here is not fault but the absence of a legal basis for the asset movement. We examine whether a legal basis existed for the payment or performance and deploy, where possible, the defence of disenrichment (§ 818 (3) BGB) as well as other defences.
Why Clients Choose GLADICA Lawyers
Liability defence requires the combination of criminal law experience and sound knowledge of damages and liability law. Particularly where criminal and civil proceedings run in parallel, a coordinated approach is decisive. We work with discretion, think across proceedings and consistently keep both the criminal law risks and the civil law consequences in view. No mandate is delegated to junior associates.
Highly Specialised Lawyers
Experienced lawyers with specialised expertise in representing victims across all categories of criminal offences.
500+ Five-Star Reviews
Your personal and case information remains strictly protected.
30+ Years of Experience
Urgent legal help whenever you need it, including nights and weekends.
Multilingual Team
Legal representation in German, English and Russian.
Nationwide Representation
Representation before all German courts, from local courts to higher regional courts.
Frequently Asked Questions about Defending Against Damages Claims and Corporate Liability
Liability generally requires a breach of duty, the occurrence of damage and a causal link (§ 823 BGB). In cases involving criminal allegations, such claims are frequently asserted in parallel. Many claims, however, already fail on grounds of absent causation, contributory negligence or inflated calculation of damage.
Corporate officers are personally liable when they have breached their duties and the company suffers damage as a result. The relevant factors include in particular duties of care, compliance requirements and business decisions. The burden of pleading and proof is partly shifted in favour of the company, which makes the defence demanding.
Business decisions made without a conflict of interest, on an adequate information basis and for the benefit of the company are protected from liability (§ 93 (1) sentence 2 AktG). Even a subsequent economic failure does not then give rise to liability. What is decisive is comprehensible documentation of the basis for the decision.
Private liability insurance or D&O policies can cover claims for damages. However, where intentional conduct is alleged there is generally no ultimate insurance cover. As long as this is not established, insurers frequently assume the costs of defence. We ensure that cover is not jeopardised by ill-considered statements.
Civil law statements can be used in criminal proceedings. Submissions should therefore always be coordinated. We coordinate the approach across both sets of proceedings and deploy conduct in testimony strategically in order to avoid disadvantages.
The standard limitation period is three years (§§ 195, 199 BGB). In special cases, for example corporate liability, longer periods apply. Early examination of limitation is often a decisive point of attack for the defence.
§ 826 BGB concerns intentional damage contrary to public policy and is frequently deployed in cases of serious allegations. Such claims carry high risks and are generally uninsured, which makes a consistent defence particularly important.
Claims for damages are frequently set too high or are not fully substantiated. We review the calculation of damage, deploy defences such as contributory negligence (§ 254 BGB) and reduce claims to a legally defensible level or defend against them entirely.
In many cases, liability insurance covers not only the payment of justified claims but also the defence against unjustified ones. This applies in particular to road traffic accidents or everyday damage cases. What is decisive is that the insured event is correctly and promptly notified. We coordinate the approach with the insurer and ensure that your defence position is maintained.
The earlier the better. Decisive positions are already established at the stage of the first allegations or notifications of claims. Early legal support prevents prejudicial statements and creates strategic room for manoeuvre.
