Facts
A. AG filed a civil law appeal against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Appenzell Ausserrhoden, which had granted B.'s request to convene an extraordinary general meeting of A. AG. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed A. AG's appeal in its judgment of June 15, 2020, to the extent that it entered into the matter.
In a submission dated August 24, 2020, A. AG requested the Federal Supreme Court to revise this judgment. It claimed that it had subsequently discovered significant facts and evidence that it had not been able to submit in the previous proceedings. Specifically, it had learned that the disputed 2.9 million bearer shares were no longer in the deposit of the respondent to the revision request, B., as he had transferred them to his son F. during the first instance proceedings. Therefore, B. was no longer a shareholder and thus not entitled to demand the convening of a general meeting.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court entered into the revision request. It explained that the revision procedure before the Federal Supreme Court is multi-staged. First, the Federal Supreme Court examines the admissibility of the revision request. If it considers the request admissible, it enters into it and examines whether the alleged ground for revision is given.
In the present case, the Federal Supreme Court was responsible for the revision request, as it had entered into A. AG's appeal in the original appeal proceedings and had assessed it on the…