In principle, the recipient of a letter of comfort has no direct claim for payment against the patron. Rather, there is only a claim to the provision of capital to the GmbH. <\/p>\n
However, the insolvency of the GmbH frustrates this obligation to furnish the company, as a result of which the lender – according to the prevailing opinion – has a direct claim for damages against the patron. This is intended to put the lender in the same economic position as if the patron had properly endowed the company. <\/p>\n
The Supreme Court has now clarified that a “hard” letter of comfort can actually establish a direct claim by the lender against the patron in the event of the borrower’s insolvency.<\/p>\n