The German engineering firm Mannesmann was the victim in 2000 of an agressive take-over bid by Vodafone. The deal, worth some $180 billion, was fiercely opposed by the Mannesman board at first; but eventually it gave in, and as part of the final settlement the company's board members were awarded bonuses of €57 million. Following an investigation  by German prosecutors, six of the company's executives were accused of criminal action in connection with the payments, including the current CEO of Deutsche Bank, Josef Ackermann. The executives were cleared of any wrongdoing at the first trial in 2004, having argued that they were merely being rewarded for their hard work in securing the deal which doubled the value of shares in the company. However, on Wednesday Germany's highest appeals court ordered a retrial. The ruling sides with German public opinion -- and with the prosecution's argument that Ackermann and his fellow executives had failed to safeguard Mannesmann's assets during the takeover. Ackermann is now under immense pressure to resign.

The German press is almost unanimous in assuming that Ackermann will be forced out, although opinion is divided on the repercussions of the ruling for the German financial community as a whole. Is this a case of judicial interference in the world of business, or is it a positive decision that will protect shareholders' interests?

Not surprisingly, the left-leaning papers are delighted that Ackermann is getting his comeuppance. According to Die Tageszeitung, "Ackermann is likely to resign and thus please those who cannot forgive his arrogant V-for-victory sign after his acquittal in the first Mannesmann case, and the proposed job cuts at the profitable Deutsche Bank."

Klaus Tolksdorff, the presiding judge, said in his ruling that the board of directors and supervisory boards are managers of the estate, not lords of the manor. According to the TAZ, "if such assumed established rights such as deciding the salaries of managers or cronies on the board are to be questioned, that can only be to the benefit of Germany as a business location. And as a society too."

Left-leaning Berliner Zeitung agrees. "Seldom has a judgement been greeted with so much satisfaction. And rightly so." The paper assumes that Ackermann will soon be on his way out. "He has experienced his own Waterloo, his soaring career has suffered its first hiccup. It would be unbearable for the biggest German financial institution to be headed by a manager accused of duplicity by Germany's highest court."

The paper adds that: "The world view of parts of the business community is now far removed from what the majority of citizens view as right and wrong … Ackermann represents the opinion that the losers in a takeover bid are entitled to multiple millions of euros. Thanks to the federal court and the prosecution service, this world view is now being fundamentally challenged."

The left-of-center Süddeutsche Zeitung argues that the federal court obviously believes that the supervisory board committed a breach of confidence by awarding hefty bonuses to the management. Ackermann's behavior, in effect, sold shareholders short: "A bonus for which there is no contractual basis, awarded at a time when it is already clear that the recipient will soon depart, is in no way in the interest of the company, and that is regardless of the sum."

The paper also notes that German Chancellor Angela Merkel feared the case would weaken Germany's standing as a business location. "The opposite is true," write the editors. "A functioning justice system that prosecutes unrestrained dips into the company coffers is a plus point for a financial community. In the end shareholders will only invest where they know that the money is going to be handled correctly."

The business daily Handelsblatt argues, "Although the presumption of innocence still applies to the CEO of Deutsche Bank, he has no other choice than to resign." The knives are already out for Ackermann: Even before the ruling was announced, his own chairman of the supervisory board, Rolf Beuer, announced the search for a successor. "What an irony: In the hour of his bitterest personal defeat, Ackermann is experiencing at his own cost the further victory of cool Anglo-Saxon capital markets logic over the good old German banking tradition. It is the victory of a culture that he himself promoted in Deutsche Bank." It argues that, "What the banker sees as normal international practice, the majority of Germans feel is an affront.

The Financial Times Deutschland writes that Ackermann should resign as soon as possible. However: "Abroad and in the capital markets, hardly anyone will understand this. The trial is seen as a German special case, and Ackermann as the guy who dragged Deutsche Bank out of 'Germany Inc.' and led it to previously unknown profitability." Still, the Swiss banker has alienated the company from its German customer base. "Ackermann never wanted to recognize that he worked at a company that includes the word 'Deutsch' (German) in its name."

The gadfly of Thursday's papers is the right-leaning daily, Die Welt. Its editors are resoundingly critical of the court's ruling and find three reasons to worry. First, in Germany, it seems, "managers who receive special bonuses due to their achievements and with the agreement of the owners, must now fear criminal prosecution." Second, "judges are allowed to decide where the true interests of private companies lie." Third: "The German state has at its disposal an array of legal tools with which to intrude in everyday business."