About Us

The general meeting of a limited liability company was convened, inter alia, to approve the transfer of members’ shares to a specific third party. Ultimately, however, it voted to approve the transfer to one of the members, who exercised his right of first refusal at the meeting. The Supreme Court concluded that this still constituted a decision regarding the same matter and also addressed several issues extending well beyond the scope of the case at hand.

The Supreme Court has already issued two noteworthy rulings this year addressing the issue of the invalidity of general meeting resolutions. In a resolution dated April 30, 2026 (Case No. 27 Cdo 2390/2025), the Supreme Court established that if a shareholder of a limited liability company votes at a general meeting in accordance with the rules stipulated in the company’s memorandum of association but simultaneously in violation of a shareholders’ agreement (SHA), such a breach of the agreement does not render the general meeting resolution invalid. Furthermore, in a resolution dated February 12, 2026 (Case No. 27 Cdo 3205/2024), the Supreme Court concluded that once the statutory preclusive time limits for filing a petition to declare a general meeting resolution invalid have expired, the petitioner cannot expand or alter the grounds upon which the claim for invalidity is based.

Weinhold Legal has become a partner of the Orienteering World Cup in Vyšší Brod. Ahead of this exceptional sporting event, the firm also hosted a Czech Orienteering press conference at its Prague offices. Tereza Hošková, an attorney at Weinhold Legal and a member of the KOB TRETRA Praha orienteering club, explains the reasons behind the partnership, the connection between orienteering and law, and when a lawyer can be particularly useful.

Artificial intelligence (hereinafter referred to as “AI”) is a constantly developing trend that is becoming an integral part of modern society, including the work environment. It can be used to automate some work processes, evaluate employees or recruit them. However, its introduction raises a fundamental question: who is responsible for the outputs and decisions of AI that arise when it is used in the work environment? The following article provides a legal perspective on this issue.