Sunday, September 10, 2006

Waitress Jobs At Bars And Strip Clubs

Juricon Siegfried Lang Berlin

By nachvolgende verdict is likely to leave the bottom set of so-called Corporate Services dry! The wildly screaming CEO of Juricon GmbH in Berlin, Siegfried Lang, accused on his website, jurists and lawyers and even judges unfair dealings. With the decision, the Landgericht Berlin, he has now even "caught". Show the stucco doors that were drawn by the court, Siegfried Lang's system clearly.

decision of the Regional Court of Berlin, of. 8.3.2006 - 86 O 33/05
Defendant: Juricon GmbH Berlin vertrt.durch the CEO Siegfried George Lang.

facts: The plaintiff seeks from bankruptcy include avoidance repayment of the awarded amount from the defendant. The claimant was under a self-application by the debtor as of September 2, 2004 decision of the AG in Munich on May 23, 2005 to the liquidator of the assets of the pulp brick Meier. Ltd. (Debtor) ordered. Founded in 1984, Debtor was entered in the commercial register of the AG Munich Munich-based business there and the wholesale of fruit and vegetables. The sole shareholder and director was MZ was on August 5, 2005, the balance of the Debtor 18329.96. in the set, while overdue debt was owed to suppliers of 159,288.52, arrears to the tax office of 2424.72.. and over den Sozialversicherungsträgern von 3707,27 .. Die Beklagte Juricon GmbH,Siegfried Lang, hat ausweislich ihrer Handelsregistereintragung u.a. die Vermittlung von Geschäftsanteilen zum Geschäftsgegenstand; hierbei ist sie laut ihrer Internetseite insbesondere auf die Vermittlung der Geschäftsanteile solcher Firmen spezialisiert, die sich in wirtschaftlichen Schwierigkeiten befinden. Im Juli 2004 verhandelten M.Z. und der jetzige Geschäftsführer der Beklagten Lang. über den Verkauf der Geschäftsanteile von M.Z. an der Schuldnerin. In der notariellen Verhandlung vom 6.August 2004 erklärte M.Z. unter Ziffer 1, dass er seinen Geschäftsanteil mit sofortiger Wirkung und allen Gewinnbezugsrechten auf den Erwerber, Herrn Sch., übertrage. The latter said that he accepted the transfer. Furthermore, the parties agreed to in section 2 of the document that the purchase price is subject to a separate agreement. In paragraph 4 of the document states that MZ dismissed with immediate effect as manager and Sch. be appointed as the new manager. The defendant had with the new CEO Sch. a consultancy agreement. The day before the above certification, the 5th of August 2004, MZ raised 8500th from your business account from the debtor. In the above-mentioned notary appointment on August 6, 2004, he handed 7000th in cash at the present manager of the defendant Siegfried Lang and another amount of money to the notary. Under the same date, namely, 6 August 2004 declared, MZ writing that the fee in cases concerning the debtor is not the placement of shares and the related advice came from funds of the debtor. Furthermore, there is a submitted by the defendant written trust agreement between the debtor, now represented Sch by the manager, and provides defendant with the same date, namely August 6, 2004, as follows:. "The Treugeberin (debtor) is a by the trustee ( defendant) run trust account funds transfer in trust, with the stipulation to have over here only on the written instructions of Treugeberin. "By letter vom 9.August 2004 an das Bankhaus R. hat die Beklagte im Namen des neuen Geschäftsführers der Schuldnerin Sch. um Schließung des Geschäftskontos der Schuldnerin gebeten. Das bestehende Guthaben sei dann auf ihr "Treuhandkonto Juricon., Verwendungszweck Fruchtmark Ziegelmeier GmbH“ zu überweisen. Am 7.September 2004 ging der Eigenantrag der Schuldnerin vom 2.September 2004 bei Gericht ein. In diesem heißt es, dass die Schuldnerin … die als Postanschrift den Namen und die Adresse der Beklagten, d.h. "c/o Juricon GmbH. ...“, angibt … mit der Stellung des Insolvenzantrags einem Rat der von ihr eingeschalteten Wirtschaftsberatungsgesellschaft folge, von der sie ihre Situation habe prüfen lassen. Der Kläger wurde initially appointed as provisional liquidator. The account balance on the account of the debtor in the closing value of 10 September 2004 was 20399.84. in having. This amount minus 3.85. Closing fees, ie 20395.99., Transferred the bank R. on Sep 10, 2004 to the account of the defendants in the Dresden Bank. According to a written acknowledgment from the September 30, 2004 CEO of the now "has Sch. / Juricon. GmbH" these 20395.99. For the "S. GmbH "with the Bookings words" cash account closure D. Bank transfer ". In a letter dated 29 December 2004 the applicant at the time ... even as the provisional liquidator over the assets of the Debtor ... the defendant failed to repay the 20395.99. on. The bankruptcy was dismissed by order of the AG Munich from May 23, 2005 opened on the same day. The plaintiff sought to condemn the defendant to him 27395.99. to pay. The defendant contends that the trust could not give them more money out because the manager Sch. sells a limited liability company interests in the September 30, 2004 to a Mr. S. Greece had, who had been appointed managing director, and the direction towards the 20395.99. been handed over in cash to him were. (Represented fraud) Grounds: The allowable claim is well founded. The plaintiff is entitled to restitution totaling 27395.99. (7000. (1) and 20395.99. (2)) to the insolvency of the debtor to (§ § 129, 133, 143 Insolvency Act). 1.Es is entitled to a refund of the current manager of the defendant's cross. On 6th August 2004, passed 7000th (§ § 129, 133, 143 Insolvency Act). According to § 129 paragraph 1 Insolvency Act, the liquidator acts that have been made before the opening of insolvency proceedings and the bankruptcy creditors, to challenge under the Insolvency Act § § 130-146. According to § 133 paragraph 1 sentence 1 and 2 Insolvency Act is voidable include such a legal action that the Debtor in the last 10 years preceding the application for insolvency proceedings, with the intent to discriminate against their creditors, who carried out when the other part of the time of the act knew the intent of the debtor. This knowledge is presumed if the other party knew that the threat of insolvency of the debtor and that the act discriminates against the creditor. A declaration of avoidance of the applicant according to a liquidator. § 129 paragraph 1 Insolvency Act is in place following the action. It is also an actionable act of the debtor as defined in § 133 Insolvency Act before. A measure is any action that triggers a legal action (see Kreft, in:. HK Insolvency, 4th ed, 2006, § 129 Rz.10). The delivery of the 7000th, the Managing Director MC previously withdrawn from the business account of the debtor, had the defendant is such an act. This act is attributable to the debtor, because it was made by the Managing Director MC as its representative (§ § 164, 166 paragraph 1 BGB; cf. Kreft, supra, § 129 Rz.26). The written confirmation of the MZ is from 6 August 2004 that he paid to the defendant is not distinguished from funds of the debtor, not against. This does not mean that it can be assumed that the 7000th reached previously by the withdrawal from business account in the debtor's assets of the MP, so that when paying any legal action the debtor, but the MP was present in person (cf. with the case of legal action without the cooperation of the debtor BGH ZIP 2005, 494 = ZVI 2005, 204, to EWiR 2005, 607 (Eckardt)). Because the Court goes to the overall circumstances of the case, acc. § from 286 ZPO assume that MZ and the defendant a benefit of the debtor had agreed, and a written "confirmation" was given only to protect the defendant.

if (typeof (theTemplate)! = 'Undefined' & & theTemplate. hasFlashNavigation == true) {
if (window == window.top parent.document.location.href.indexOf ("main.html") == -1) {
document.body.style.backgroundColor = '# ' + TheTemplate.contentBGColor;
document.location.replace (__path_prefix__ + "/ main.html src =" + jencode (document.location));} else {

document.body.style.backgroundColor = '#' + theTemplate . contentBGColor;
}
}


this purpose on the one hand supported by the fact that the defendant can give to their own words, after consulting regularly such statements, without wanting to know "what the manager (the debtor) made before."
Also in this case, they advised MZ as managing director and sole shareholder of the Debtor before, so go out to the general experience of which ist, dass auch darüber gesprochen worden ist, wie das Honorar der Beklagten bezahlt werden kann.
Andererseits hat die Beklagte … obwohl sie die Kontobewegung am 5.August 2004 jedenfalls im Nachhinein gesehen hat … dem neuen ebenfalls von ihr beratenen Geschäftsführer Sch. offensichtlich nicht geraten, diesen … nach dem Bekunden der Beklagten dann zu Unrecht entnommenen … Betrag etwa gem. §§30ff. GmbHG zurückzufordern. Insofern bedarf es der von dem BGH zum Anfechtungsgesetz angestellten Erwägungen bezüglich mittelbarer Zuwendungen hier nicht (vgl. BGH ZIP 1980, 346 = NJW 1980, 1795 mit Verweis auf BGHZ 38, 44). Die Zahlung erfolgte in dem Jahr vor der Eröffnung des Insolvenzverfahrens am May 23, 2005, and therefore in the 10-year period of § 133 Insolvency Act. Disadvantage of the creditor intent of the debtor in the payment is expected. This is when the debtor has recognized for the carrying out of legal action as defined in § 140 Insolvency Act, that is intended for its taking effect, the disadvantage of creditors generally as a result of his act or alleged consequence of his act and approved (see Kreft, supra, § 133 Rz.10). For this purpose, the intent of the manager is the Debtor in accordance with MZ. § 166 paragraph 1 BGB attributed. It is also likely that he has realized that he harmed by such payment from the assets of the debtor, its other creditors in that that a smaller company's assets is available, without facing that this consideration for the debtor. After all, the advice is not provided to the debtor but for the MZ, so that from a case of "incongruent cover" is assumed (cf. Kreft, supra, § 131 Rz.3ff).. Furthermore, it is also on the knowledge of the creditor discrimination intent of the defendant be considered as a challenging opponent. This knowledge is to § 133 Section 1 Theorem 2 InsO suspect. For it is likely that knew the defendant, that the insolvency of the debtor was threatened at least, and that payment will the creditors. From the knowledge of the impending insolvency according to § 18 paragraph 2 of Insolvency Act is expected. The proof of the threat of insolvency can be performed due to evidence already in clear cases (cf. Kirchhof, in: HK Insolvency Act, § 18 Rz.15). There are basically in a forecast period, the existing payment obligations, which must at least be due in the future, to make available in future cash over. The circumstances have to allow an impartial observer to conclude on the impending entry of default; (. Cf. Kirchhof, supra, § 18 Rz.5ff, 14 ff) an indebtedness may include an indication of his. Since the defendant MZ regarding the sale of its shares beraten hat, ist davon auszugehen, dass sie die finanzielle Situation der Schuldnerin im Einzelnen kannte. Somit ist anzunehmen, dass sie wusste, dass der Kontostand auf dem Geschäftskonto der Schuldnerin 18329,96 . betrug, denen Lieferantenverbindlichkeiten von 159288,52 ., Rückstände bei dem Finanzamt von 2424,72 . und bei Sozialversicherungsträgern in Höhe von 3707,27 . gegenüberstanden, und dass sich die finanzielle Situation der Schuldnerin im Laufe der letzten Jahre verschlechtert hatte. Damit war ihr klar, dass die Schuldnerin überschuldet war und dass eine Zahlungsunfähigkeit drohte, da den jedenfalls künftig fällig werdenden Verbindlichkeiten keine erheblichen künftigen Zahlungsmittel gegenüberstehen would. On top of that were included in the outstanding amounts and social security contributions are not paid, an indication that even for a payment, can not because their pay is punishable (see also Kirchhof, supra, § 17 Rz.34). Furthermore, it is the business of the defendant company in financial difficulties, which include, as evidenced by its website also insolvent company to advise, why has MZ probably turned to the defendant. In addition, it is assumed that the defendant knew that the payment to other creditors they will discriminate. This is supported on the one hand, the fact that the payer for the so-called "consultant fee" regarding the sale of the shares after the talk of the defendant is not the debtor but MZ so that the Debtor ... as stated above ... without legal paid was (case incongruent cover "). The defendant was seen that such property to the other creditors will no longer be available. It can therefore be left open whether an act could also be seen in the fact that the debtor in the above amount according obviously not. § § 30 et seq. GmbHG has recovered (§ 129 Section 2, § 133 Section 1, § 143 Insolvency Act;. cf. BGH ZIP 2006, 243 = ZVI 2006, 118) 2.Auch entitlement to the repayment of 20395.88 . the insolvency estate is given (§ 129 paragraph 1, § 133 paragraph 1, § 143 Insolvency Act). One of the applicants with the application of the contested act according Debtor. § 133 Insolvency Act is at least in the transfer of 20395.88. to see the account of the defendant. According to § 133 paragraph 1 sentence 1 and 2 Insolvency is including such an act is challenged, the debtor has made of the request to open insolvency proceedings with the intention of their creditors at a disadvantage if the other part of the time of the act, to the intent the debtor knew. This knowledge is presumed if the other party knew that the threat of insolvency of the debtor and penalizes the act, the creditor. Already the transfer of 20395.88. to the account of the defendants in the Dr. Bank was later in the bankruptcy available mass decreased (to BGH KTS see 1962, 252ff.). Because on this account, the balance of an access of the plaintiff was already so no longer open, because to assume that this account is with the sub-account number 00 in any event led not only to the debtor (to BGH KTS see 1962, 252ff.). For it will not run as a trust account in favor of the Debtor with its own sub-account number, but that the debtor be given only in the intended purpose. The defendant has not sufficiently demonstrated that this is a specially for the assets of the Debtor trust account was managed. Although it has announced that they will trust accounts with sub-accounts for individual customers. At the same time however, it has shown that this version to individual sub-account numbers. Such a sub-account number, eg 01 or 02, etc., was not listed. That this money was on a specially created account for the Debtor, has argued the defendant nor speaks for the payment receipt from the September 30, 2004th Because according to this an account at the D. Bank was closed, while the defendant their accounts with the Bank or, now, when Dr. E. Bank operates as a bank. The receipt, thus having no significance with regard to a specially performed for the Debtor Anderkontos. Es war vor diesem Hintergrund Aufgabe der Beklagten darzulegen, dass das Geld dennoch nicht dem Gläubigerzugriff entzogen war, sondern die bereits eingetretene Vermögensminderung der Schuldnerin durch eine bestimmte Verwendung des empfangenen Betrages zu Gunsten der Schuldnerin wieder wettgemacht wurde (vgl. BGH KTS 1962, 252ff.).
Diese Darlegung kann nicht durch Vorlage einer Quittung erfolgen, die belegt, dass dieser Betrag nach Stellung des Antrags auf Eröffnung des Insolvenzverfahrens in bar an einen Investor aus Griechenland ausgezahlt worden ist. Denn die Barauszahlung dieses Gesellschaftsvermögens an einen in Griechenland ansässigen "Unternehmenskäufer“ aufgrund eines sittenwidrigen Vertrags über die Abtretung of shares after bankruptcy declaration will certainly not mean that the creditors are satisfied in the way that it would be the case if the assets remained with the Debtor would be. For it is not expected that the assets of the debtor by this transfer has been replenished. Rather, the assignment of the shares to Mr. S. in Greece is under bankruptcy proceedings ... even without precise knowledge of its content ... as immoral and therefore null and void (§ § 389, 138 paragraph 1 BGB, see also AG Memmingen Rpfleger 2004 223). For it is in the circumstances of the case assumed here that the assets of the conscious Access the creditor should be withdrawn.
evidence that the debtor had already been giving serious outstanding receivables for bankruptcy. If in this situation, the sole shareholder transferred its partnership interest to an investor in Greece and dismissal of the former manager of the Greece-based investor is appointed as the new manager, and this essential assets of the Company in cash from a now as Sch. Managing Director shall be designated to be assumed without doubt the fact that the assets of the company the reach of creditors should be deprived intentionally. It is also assumed that the defendant was aware of these circumstances leading to immorality. It could be called by his own admission in any case advisor to the CEO Sch. and was apparent in the representation in the bankruptcy of September 2, 2004, the management consulting company, the managing director Sch. advised to file an application for bankruptcy and has, moreover, significant for him, it intervenes.
From the creditor discrimination intent of the debtor, Sch now represented by the Manager. (§ 166 paragraph 1 BGB), in light of that act, "transfer to the account of the defendant" is assumed. This follows from the fact that the defendant the manager Sch. ... By his own words ... come to trust this solution had to withdraw the money the intervention of other creditors. It is likely that the defendant knew the creditor discrimination intent. For according to the above, it is likely that the defendant knew of the Council due to bankruptcy looming insolvency of the debtor and also knew that the act "transfer to her account" would the other creditors.