Europe has known very different systems of company laws for a long time. These differences do not only pertain to the board structures of public companies, where single-tier and two-tier structures can be distinguished, they also pertain to the principles of fixed legal capital. Fixed legal capital is not a traditional ingredient of English and Irish company law and had to be incorpo-rated into these legal systems (only) for public limited companies according to the Second European Company Law Directive of 1976. Both jurisdictions have never really embraced these rules. Against this background, the British Accounting Standards Board (ASB) and the Company Law Centre at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) have initiated and supported a study of the benefits of this legal system by a group of experts led by Jonathan Rickford. The report of this group has been published in 2004. Its result was that legal capital was costly and superfluous; hence, the Second Directive should be repealed. The British government has adopted this view and wants the European Commission to act accordingly. Against this background a group of German and European company law experts, academics as well as practitioners, have come together to scrutinise sense and benefits of fixed legal capital and all its specific elements guided by the following questions: What is the relevant legal concept supposed to achieve? What does it achieve in reality? What criticisms are there? Which proposals or alternatives are available? From the outset the group of experts has endeavoured to cooperate with foreign colleagues, which resulted in very fruitful and pleasant exchanges. This volume contains, besides an executive summary of the results, 16 essays on specific aspects of legal capital in Germany covering also neighbouring fields of law (e.g. accounting, insolvency);7 reports on fixed legal capital in other jurisdictions (France, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the U.S.A.) addressing the same questions as the essays on German law. The British initiative disapproves of the Second Directive. The Directive does only deal with public limited companies in Europe, which is reflected in the analysis presented here. It is only concerned with the fixed legal capital of public limited companies, not with capital issues of private companies. The study has arrived at a result that differs completely from that of the Rickford group. It verifies the usefulness of the concept of fixed legal capital and wishes to convince the European Commission of the benefits of the Second Company Law Directive.

Very different systems for corporations have always existed in Europe. These differences relate not only to the management structure of the corporations, with single or dual systems for management bodies, but also to the principles of permanent capital: Fixed capital is foreign to English and Irish law, and must be incorporated into the legal systems (only) for the corporation on the basis of the 2nd EU Capital Directive of 1976. No one ever made friends in these countries in doing so. Therefore, the British Department of Trade initiated and supported an investigation by a workgroup under the leadership of Jonathan Rickford some years ago regarding the benefits of this system. The report from this workgroup was published in the year 2004 (European Business Law Review [2004] 919). It came to the conclusion that the system of permanent capital is expensive and redundant; it therefore recommended the cancellation of the 2nd Directive. The British government aligned itself with this approach and pressed the European Commission for an appropriate initiative. Before this background, a group of German scholars and practitioners of corporate law converged in order to investigate the sense and benefits of permanent capital and its individual elements quite broadly. Aside from a summary of the results, a total of 15 individual investigations of aspects of capital in Germany and their relationships to adjacent legal areas (accounting and insolvency, for example) are in the present volume, with 7 reports on foreign permanent capital (France, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain in the USA), each under the same questions such as the discourses on German law. The investigation seeks to convince the European Commission of the benefits of the 2nd Directive.

Von Prof. Dr. Walther Busse von Colbe, Bochum Sehr verehrte Damen, meine Herren! 1m Namen des Institutes fUr Untemehmungsftihrung und Untemehmensfor- schung der Ruhr-Universitat Bochum und zugleich im Namen meines Kollegen Lutter m6chte ich die Teilnehmer und Referenten zum heutigen Symposion "Auf- gaben des Wirtschaftsprlifers" hier in der Ruhr-Universitat begI"i. GBPen. Ich danke Ihnen fur das gro& Interesse und die rege Teilnahme, die Sie dieser Tagung entgegengebracht haben, und den Referenten fUr die Bereitschaft zur Mit- wirkung. Insbesondere danke ich aber auch dem Institut der Wirtschaftsprlifer fUr die Kooperation bei der Vorbereitung und der Durchfiihrung dieser Tagung. Den Vorsitzenden des Vorstandes des Institutes der Wirtschaftsprlifer, Herm Hans Havermann, mochte ich besonders willkommen heif. \en. Anlaf. \ fur dieses Symposion war, daf. \ einige Vorgiinge und Gerichtsentscheidun- gen in jtingster Zeit den Berufsstand der Wirtschaftsprlifer, die Institution der Wirtschaftsprlifung, insbesondere der Pflichtprlifung, und auch das Prlifungsobjekt, also den Jahresabschlufl, zum Gegenstand des offentlichen Interesses, aber auch einer sehr regen Fachdiskussion gemacht haben. Lassen Sie mich nur zwei Kom- plexe herausgreifen: Bei eipigen grof. \en Untemehmen wurden ganz iiberraschend Verluste von einem ganz ungewohnlichen Ausmaf. \ bekannt, die aus dem letzten Jahresabschluf. \ nicht erkennbar waren. Ich erinnere an die Vorgiinge bei Herstatt oder der Hessischen Landesbank. Es tauchte hier die Frage auf: "Hatte der Wirtschaftspriifer oder die Prlifung versagt, oder war das Priifungsobjekt untauglich? " Erich Potthoff hat dieses Problem einmal unter das l.

In this concise monograph, the great German and European expert on company law, Marcus Lutter, assigns the stockholder his role in the market economy, namely as a player involved in major transactions and one who guarantees diversity and counteracts the concentration of power in the managing bodies particularly by exercising his right to inspect and file suit. Prof. Dr. Dr. Stefan Grundmann, LL.M., Humboldt University Berlin"