Press release: Miss Ger­ma­ny 2013 suc­cessful­ly sues Miss Ger­ma­ny Cor­po­ra­ti­on

 

Colo­gne, April 1, 2016. Caro­li­ne Noe­ding, Miss Ger­ma­ny 2013, suc­cessful­ly defen­ded hers­elf against the Miss Ger­ma­ny Cor­po­ra­ti­on (MGC) befo­re the Olden­burg Regio­nal Court (Case No. 17 O 1118/05). The Miss Ger­ma­ny orga­ni­zer from Olden­burg was orde­red by the court of first ins­tance to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on about inco­me by pre­sen­ting the busi­ness bank state­ments.

The back­ground of the dis­pu­te is the review of all sett­le­ments and pay­ments after the coope­ra­ti­on from 2013–2014. Miss Ger­ma­ny 2013 ter­mi­na­ted this wit­hout noti­ce. On behalf of Caro­li­ne Noe­ding, the law firm Reh­katsch Rechts­an­wäl­te reques­ted infor­ma­ti­on to dis­c­lo­se the busi­ness account. This account was spe­ci­al­ly set up as a trust account for Miss Ger­ma­ny. Stran­ge­ly enough, the manage­ment (Ralf and Horst Klem­mer) vehe­men­t­ly refu­sed to do so. Caro­li­ne Noe­ding then suc­cessful­ly filed an action for dis­clo­sure with the Olden­burg Regio­nal Court. The court ruled as fol­lows:

“The defen­dant is orde­red to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on by sub­mit­ting com­ple­te copies of all account state­ments for the account with the num­ber xxxxxxx at Lan­des­spar­kas­se Olden­burg for the peri­od from 05.03.2013 to 30.12.2014.”

Despi­te the clear ruling, Miss Ger­ma­ny Cor­po­ra­ti­on con­ti­nues to refu­se to pro­vi­de the pro­per infor­ma­ti­on and only sub­mits redac­ted account state­ments. As a result, fore­clo­sure pro­cee­dings were initia­ted against the com­pa­ny.

Caro­li­ne Noe­ding comm­ents: “The self-typed invoices made me won­der. Over­all, the­re may be some­thing wrong here. As I have heard from other Mis­ses, their com­pen­sa­ti­on was much hig­her. In addi­ti­on, I don’t know in part what the Klem­mers real­ly nego­tia­ted and took. It’s all very opaque and very nebu­lous to me.”

Spe­cia­list lawy­er for media law Patrick Reh­katsch: “Due to the sala­mi tac­tics of the Miss Ger­ma­ny Cor­po­ra­ti­on, we assu­me that it has some­thing to hide. In addi­ti­on, it is not yet clear how much reve­nue was actual­ly gene­ra­ted by all pos­si­ble adver­ti­sing and spon­sor­ship con­tracts. Our cli­ent should still be entit­led to com­pen­sa­ti­on.”