In 2008, the business interests of the Foundation had been retracted mbH and transferred to its Managing Director Mr Peter Bierkandt illegally through the Ruhr Valley steel company. As already reported, the shares in the Ruhr Valley Stahlgesellschft should go to will of the Foundation Authority mbH, which the only endowments the Dipl.-ing. Willi Pickhardt represent Foundation, to be sold. In 2008, the business interests of the Foundation had been retracted mbH and transferred to its Managing Director Mr Peter Bierkandt illegally through the Ruhr Valley steel company. The Foundation, represented by its Board of Directors had instituted proceedings before the Landgericht Essen, however.
The OLG Hamm has this action in 2. Instance upheld and declared the seizure annulled. According to the courts, the current Board of Directors, due to incorrect order in 2003, representing Foundation Court could. The Board had therefore the Foundation’s authority to issue a certificate of representation according to 12 ABS 5 StifG NRW (old version) asked. Dated Dec. 18, 2008, the proxy certificate for the Management Board has been issued by authority of the Foundation. According to the LG food met this certificate but not to the proof of certificate of judicial representation of the Executive Committee. So sought case is not dismissed and lost the entire Foundation’s assets as a result of the Board of Trustees asked the Foundation Authority to appoint a trustee for the Foundation and to instruct them to legitimize the current Board of Trustees by order on the part of the receiver.
The trustee court procedures and the out-of-court agreement of the other party is contrary to his job solely concerned with the current. Are efforts now after a successful Foundation end of the procedure the unlawful confiscation of shares through the Ruhr Valley steel company, by the authority of the Foundation, to sell the shares to the Managing Director of the Ruhr Valley steel company mbH. The Foundation Authority in a very dubious light, while the Board of Trustees as it strives to get the Foundation’s assets and thus the Foundation. So the Foundation Authority at present strives after the expiry of the order of the custodian, to extend them for a further 6 months. She has for the corresponding decision of the 02 Jun arranged 2010 immediate enforcement. The Board of Trustees has, however, filed a complaint with the administrative court Arnsberg. Decision of Aug. 03, 2010, the VG Arnsberg has confirmed the suspensory effect of the action in this procedure. However, the Foundation of authority, contrary to the Vertregungsbescheinigung issued by your letter of Aug. 20, 2010 the members of the Board, urged to refrain from any acts that could give the impression that you are entitled to representation as ‘Board’ of the Foundation.” The aim is obviously the capacity to act of the Board of the Foundation to restrict it or to pick up and to promote the sale of the shares. It is the task of the Foundation Authority to monitor and to ensure that the organs of the Foundation coming in Foundation business and Members expressing will of the founder and the Foundation legal provisions to keep in mind, so also in the Foundation Law NRW 6 par. 2. As the question presents itself a Foundation Authority at a sale of the Foundation’s assets might be interested in which background.