Created on 04-11-2013 at 11:08 AM
The FC Bayern München AG supervisory board is of the unanimous opinion that Uli Hoeneß should continue to exercise the office of FC Bayern München AG supervisory board chairman even though he has been sent for trial.
Prior to reaching its decision, the supervisory board obtained legal opinion regarding the responsibilities of the supervisory board in the Uli Hoeneß tax case. The counsel provided by corporate legal specialist Professor Gerd Krieger (Hengeler Mueller, Düsseldorf) and criminal law expert Dr. Sven Thomas (TDWE Düsseldorf) concludes that it lies within the scope of the discretion accruing to members of the supervisory board not to advocate that Mr Hoeneß relinquish his office, but to express faith in him to continue exercising his office.
Professor Krieger and Dr. Thomas advise that, in formulating their decision, FC Bayern München AG supervisory board members are required exclusively to consider the best interests of the company, and to act thereafter in order to best serve the well-being of FC Bayern München AG. The decisive considerations for the supervisory board - that Uli Hoeneß has rendered outstanding service to FC Bayern München for more than 30 years; that he is an important leadership figure for FC Bayern München; and that according to the results of two public opinion surveys commissioned by FC Bayern München, he is supported by an overwhelming majority of the FC Bayern München eV membership - are proper considerations and undoubtedly apposite in supporting the decision taken.
Furthermore, the law does not prescribe disqualification from office for supervisory board members due to a criminal conviction. On the contrary, there are ample examples of cases in which board and supervisory board members, even of publicly listed companies, have retained their positions despite being accused of violating legal responsibilities in other areas of their lives.
Additionally, the notion that board members of major German corporations represented on the FC Bayern München AG supervisory board should be obliged to advocate that FC Bayern München AG pursues a "zero tolerance" policy with regard to Mr Hoeneß is erroneous. An obligation of this nature does not exist even in stock-exchange listed public limited companies, and absolutely does not exist with respect to breach of duty in the private sphere.
FC Bayern München AG