The Supreme Court for Civil Matters recently ruled about (virtual) cash-pooling-contracts in connection with illegal refunds of capital contributions to shareholders. Cash-pooling-contracts aim at facilitating the planning and management of liquidity within a group. The admissibility of a cash-pooling-contract is among other reasons questionable, if there is foreseeable existential risk for the participating companies at the time of conclusion of the contract or if a participating company is prohibited to terminate the contract. The Supreme Court for Civil Matters has not specifically ruled on the admissibility of cash-pooling-contracts because the defendant was a third party. There is still no general obligation to inquire and assess about this issue for third parties, unless their suspicion is close to certainty (17Ob5/19p).