Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T22:33:12.002Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Executives’ Liability for Incorrect Ad Hoc Announcements – A Comment on the Decision of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in In re Infomatec AG, BGH II ZR 217/03, 218/03 and 402/02 of 19 July 2004

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Dirk Reidenbach

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

From March 1997 until 5 June 2003, the Frankfurt Stock Exchange (Frankfurter Wertpapierbörse, FWB) maintained the “Neuer Markt“ as a segment of the over-the-counter-market for new economy/technology companies. The 50 “biggest” companies were admitted to the Neuer Markt Index (NEMAX50®) of Deutsche Börse AG, which is now only formally being continued, after termination of the Neuer Markt, until the end of 2004, and is already succeeded by the smaller TecDAX30®. Initially a success after rising some 500% from March 1997 to mid 2000, the Index dropped from over 9000 points to below 1000 points in March 2002, a loss of 90% or 200 billion Euros. The reasons for this development are manifold and not primarily to be found in the illegal behavior of the issuers or their officials. Still, legal proceedings concerning companies like Meta@box, EM.TV, Comroad, Biodata and Refugium uncovered that in many cases wrongful acts did occur, especially in the form of incorrect balance sheets and wrong or even fraudulent communication to the market. The three parallel cases the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) had to consider, concerned one of these failing – and now insolvent -companies, Infomatec AG. In criminal proceedings the two executives (CEO and his deputy) of this company against whom the civil lawsuits had been filed, were convicted of insider trading and market manipulation. One criminal case is still on appeal. The findings of the criminal proceedings, however, were not relevant to the civil proceedings.

Type
Private Law
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 9 , 01 September 2004 , pp. 1081 - 1093
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See Merkt, Empfiehlt es sich, im Interesse des Anlegerschutzes und zur Förderung des Finanzplatzes Deutschland das Kapitalmarkt- und Börsenrecht neu zu regeln? Börsenrechtliches Teilgutachten, Gutachten G für den 64. Deutschen Juristentag 2002, G 106; Lenenbach, Kapitalmarkt- und Börsenrecht, 140 (2000). (Page 140 refers to even below 750 points in September 2001 which is due to external effects as well though).Google Scholar

2 See Baums, Haftung wegen Falschinformation des Sekundärmarktes, ZHR 167 (2003) 139, 140.Google Scholar

3 Decisions by the BGH can be found online: http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/.Google Scholar

4 LG Augsburg (3 KLs 502 Js 127 368/00) (27 Nov 2003) and (4 May 2004, on appeal).Google Scholar

5 LG Augsburg (9 O 1858/01) (11 Jan. 2002); OLG München (30 U 104/02) (21 Jan. 2003) (Lower instances to BGH II ZR 218/03. Neither of these judgments is published).Google Scholar

6 LG Augsburg BKR 2002, 236 (6 O 154/01 236) (9 January 2002); OLG München BKR 2003, 504 (30 U 103/02) (20 Dec. 2002) (Lower instances to BGH II ZR 217/03).Google Scholar

7 LG Augsburg WM 2001, 1944 (3 O 4995/00) (24 Sep. 2001).Google Scholar

8 OLG München ZIP 2002, 1989 (30 U 855/01) (1 Oct. 2002).Google Scholar

9 BGH II ZR 217/03, 5-7; BGH II ZR 218/03, 5-7; BGH II ZR 402/02, 6-7 (now published in ZIP 2004, 1593, 1599 and 1604).Google Scholar

10 BGH II ZR 217/03, 7-10; BGH II ZR 218/03, 7-9; BGH II ZR 402/02, 8-10.Google Scholar

11 See Rössner and Worms, in Handbuch des Kapitalanlagerechts, 2nd ed., § 9 Rn. 8 with Fn. 19 (Assman and Schütze, eds., 1997); Geibel, , in Wertpapierhandelsgesetz etc., § 15 WpHG Rn. 155 (Schäfer, ed., 1999); Ledermann, , in Wertpapierhandelsgesetz etc., 1999, § 88 BörsG Rn. 1 (Schäfer, ed., 1999); Schwark, Börsengesetz, 2nd ed., § 88 Rn. 1 (1994).Google Scholar

12 BVerfG ZIP 2002, 1986, 1988 (2 BvR 742/02) (24 Sep. 2002).Google Scholar

13 BGH II ZR 217/03, 10-12; BGH II ZR 218/03, 9-11; BGH II ZR 402/02, 10-12.Google Scholar

14 See Baums ed., Bericht der Regierungskommission Corporate Governance, Rn. 184 (2001).Google Scholar

15 BGH II ZR 217/03, 12; BGH II ZR 218/03, 11-12; BGH II ZR 402/02, 12.Google Scholar

16 BGH II ZR 217/03, 16-21; BGH II ZR 402/02, 18-21.Google Scholar

17 BGH II ZR 217/03, 15; BGH II ZR 402/02, 15.Google Scholar

18 BGH II ZR 218/03, 14-17.Google Scholar

19 BGH NJW 1996, 1828 (VI ZR 380/94) (19 Mar. 1996).Google Scholar

20 BGHZ 100, 214, 216 (IV a ZR 205/85) (18 Mar. 1987).Google Scholar

21 BGHZ 139, 225, 233 (XI ZR 173/97) (14 Jul. 1998).Google Scholar

22 §§ 371, 373, 402, 415, 445, 447 ZPO.Google Scholar

23 BGH NJW 1998, 814, 815 (VI ZR 389/96) (2 Dec. 1997).Google Scholar

24 Gute Aussichten für geprellte Aktionäre, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 13 Jul. 2004, at 19; Hoffnung für Infomatec-Kläger, Börsen Zeitung, 13 Jul. 2004, at 11; Bundesgerichtshof stärkt Anlegerrechte, Börsen Zeitung, 20 Jul. 2004, at 5.Google Scholar

25 See Groß, Haftung für fehlerhafte oder fehlende Regel- oder ad-hoc-Publizität, WM 2002, 477, 479-482 with further references.Google Scholar

26 See Assmann, in Handbuch des Kapitalanlagerechts, 2nd ed., § 7 Rn. 59 (Assman and Schütze, eds., 1997).Google Scholar

27 Thümmel, Haftung für geschönte Ad-hoc-Meldungen: Neues Risikofeld für Vorstände oder ergebnisorientierte Einzelfallrechtsprechung?, DB 2002, 2331, 2332.Google Scholar

28 See Assmann and Kümpel, in Wertpapierhandelsgesetz, 3rd ed., § 15 Rn. 268 with further references in Fn. 1 (Assmann and Schneider, eds., 2003).Google Scholar

29 BT-Drucksache 12/7918, 96, 102.Google Scholar

30 Now §§ 37b, 37c WpHG do establish civil liability of the company but not of the executives for infringements of § 15 WpHG.Google Scholar

31 See Rössner and Worms, in Handbuch des Kapitalanlagerecht, 2nd ed., § 9 Rn. 8 and Fn. 19 (Assmann and Schütze, eds., 1997); Geibel, , in Wertpapierhandelsgesetz etc., § 15 WpHG Rn. 155 (Schäfer ed., 1999); Ledermann, , in Wertpapierhandelsgesetz etc., § 88 BörsG Rn. 1 (Schäfer, ed., 1999); Schwark, Börsengesetz, 2nd ed., § 88 Rn. 1 (1994); Thümmel, , Haftung für geschönte Ad-hoc-Meldungen: Neues Risikofeld für Vorstände oder ergebnisorientierte Einzelfallrechtsprechung?, DB 2001, 2331, 2332f.Google Scholar

32 Different from § 15 Abs. 6 WpHG, the legislator did not explicitly state that damages are excluded.Google Scholar

33 BT-Drucksache 10/318, 46.Google Scholar

34 Ekkenga, Fragen der deliktischen Haftungsbegründung bei Kursmanipulation und Insidergeschäften, ZIP 2004, 781, 784–786.Google Scholar

35 Altenhain, Die Neuregelung der Marktpreismanipulation durch das Vierte Finanzmarktförderungsgesetz, BB 2002, 1874, 1875; Ekkenga, Fragen der deliktischen Haftungsbegründung bei Kursmanipulation und Insidergeschäften, ZIP 2004, 781; Lenzen, Das neue Recht der Kursmanipulation, ZBB 2002, 279, 284; Ziouvas, Das neue Recht gegen Kurs- und Marktpreismanipulation im 4. Finanzmarktförderungsgesetz, ZGR 2003, 113, 143.Google Scholar

36 Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) O.J. L 96/16 (12 Apr. 2003).Google Scholar

37 Fuchs and Dühn, Deliktische Schadensersatzhaftung für falsche Ad-hoc-Mitteilungen, BKR 2002, 1063, 1068–1069.Google Scholar

38 Baums, Haftung wegen Falschinformation des Sekundärmarktes, ZHR 167 (2003), 139, 185; Hennrichs, Haftung für falsche Ad-hoc-Mitteilungen und Bilanzen, in Recht und Risiko, Festschrift für Hellmut Kollhosser zum 70. Geburtstag, 201, 206 (Bork, Hoeren, and Pohlmann, eds., 2004).Google Scholar

39 Oetker, in Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Vol. 2a, 4th ed., § 249 Rn. 267 (2003).Google Scholar

40 Hennrichs, Haftung für falsche Ad-hoc-Mitteilungen und Bilanzen, in Recht und Risiko, Festschrift für Hellmut Kollhosser zum 70. Geburtstag, 201, 206 (Bork, Hoeren, and Pohlmann, eds., 2004).Google Scholar

41 One could calculate the difference of the shares prices at the time of purchase, re-sale or correction of the false information, see Baums, Haftung wegen Falschinformation des Sekundärmarktes, ZHR 167 (2003), 139, 189.Google Scholar

42 15 U.S.C. § 78j.Google Scholar

43 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.Google Scholar

44 Suez Equity Investors, L.P. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, 250 F.3d 87, 95 (2d Cir. 2001); Manufacturers Hanover Trust v. Drysdale Securities Corp., 801 F.2d 13, 20 (2d Cir. 1986).Google Scholar

45 Schlick v. Penn-Dixie Cement Corp., 507 F.2d 374, 380 (2d Cir.1974).Google Scholar

46 Shores v. Sklar, 647 F.2d 462, 468 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 103 S.Ct. 722 (1983); List v. Fashion Park, Inc., 340 F.2d 457, 462 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 811 (1965).Google Scholar

47 Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 174 (3d Cir. 2001).Google Scholar

48 Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 245 (1988).Google Scholar

49 Id. at 247.Google Scholar

50 Halkin v. Verifone, Inc. (In re Verifone Sec. Litig.), 11 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 1993).Google Scholar

51 According to Langevoort, Taming the Animal Spirits of the Stock Market: A Behavioral Approach to Securities Regulation, Working Paper 64, 53-54, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics (2002) the fraud-on-the-market-theory should rather be seen as a practical means of case management.Google Scholar

52 Cf. Fama, Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work, 25(2) J. Finance 383, 404-409 (1970).Google Scholar

53 Compare Knapp v. Ernst & Whinney, 90 F.3d 1431, 1438 (9th Cir. 1996) with Robbins v. Kroger Props. Inc., 116 F.3d 1441, 1448 (11th Cir. 1997).Google Scholar

54 Leisch, Vorstandshaftung für falsche Ad-hoc-Mitteilungen – ein höchstrichterlicher Beitrag zur Stärkung des Finanzplatzes Deutschland, ZIP 2004, 1573, 1575.Google Scholar

55 BGH II ZR 218/03, 15.Google Scholar

56 BGH II ZR 218/03, 17.Google Scholar

57 See In re Convergent Technologies Securities Litigation, 948 F.2d 507, 513 (9th Cir. 1991); In re Apple Computer Securities Litigation, 886 F.2d 1109, 1114-1115 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 943 (1990).Google Scholar

58 BGH II ZR 218/03, 14.Google Scholar

59 Baums, Haftung wegen Falschinformation des Sekundärmarktes, ZHR 167, 2003, 139, 181.Google Scholar

60 Baums, ed., Bericht der Regierungskommission Corporate Governance, Rn. 186 (2001).Google Scholar

61 http://www.bundesregierung.de/en/Latest-News/Press-Releases-,10156.471243/pressemitteilung/Federal-Government-to-improve-.htm.Google Scholar