Further information on the curriculum vitae, publications, lectures and third-party funded projects of Prof. Dr. Thomas M.J. Möllers.

Contact information of the secretary`s office, research assistants and student assistants as well as lecturers and honorary professors.

All information regarding the courses and the main research interest of the chair as well as the doctorate.

5.7.2022

In the current issue of the journal for business and banking law "Wertpapiermitteilungen" (WM), Professor Möllers, Julian Glas and Dr. Pirmin Schauer discuss in a first part the lessons learned from the Wirecard scandal, which triggered a wave of reforms. The market public's trust in the integrity of companies in the Prime Standard of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange and in the selection of DAX companies was disappointed. Starting on page 1201, the reforms that have now been implemented are examined. Furthermore, the paper considers revocation and the right to information as rights of intervention of the stock exchanges and provides ideas for potential further development de lege ferenda. In the next issue of WM, the article will be continued from p. 1253.

31.05.2022

In the current issue of BKR, Professor Möllers discusses, in the context of the falsification of the balance sheet and the accompanying insolvency of Wirecard, how the auditor's report on a company's annual financial statements can be qualified as public capital market information pursuant to Section 1 (2) KapMuG. Because the issue has not yet been discussed, the legal methodology must be used to clarify whether claims for damages based on the auditor's opinion can be made the declaratory target of KapMuG proceedings.

30.05.2022

If an entrepreneurial company within the meaning of § 5a GmbHG does not - as provided for by law - indicate its legal form and the limitation of liability in the company name, its representative appearing in legal transactions is liable for the incorrect legal appearance thereby created pursuant to § 311 (2) and (3), § 179 BGB analogously.
Professor Möllers and Tobias Manhardt comment on this ruling of the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) of 13 January 2022 (Case No. III ZR 210/20) in their comments on the ruling: Methodologically, the analogy to § 179 BGB made by the BGH is not convincing.