Short Reads

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf confirmed that claim vehicle business model was contrary to public morals

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf confirmed that claim vehicle business model was contrary to public morals

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf confirmed that claim vehicle business model was contrary to public morals

01.04.2015

On 18 February 2015, the German Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf; "OLG Düsseldorf") confirmed that the assignments of claims to claim vehicle ("CDC") in a follow-on action for damages in the cement cartel are void under German law.

It held that the assignments violated German public morals (gute Sitten) as it was foreseeable at the time of the assignments that CDC would not be able to meet a possible future litigation cost order. The financial risks involved in litigation were thus unjustifiably shifted to the defendants [See our March 2015 newsletter article]. The OLG Düsseldorf thereby upheld the judgment of the Landsgericht Düsseldorf of 17 December 2013 [See our January 2014 newsletter article]. The OLG Düsseldorf recently published its judgment in full.

The OLG Düsseldorf held that it is up to the claimant to show that it has sufficient financial means at its disposal at the time of the assignments (sekundären Darlegungslast). In this case, CDC failed to do so. The OLG Düsseldorf rejected CDC's argument that the value of the assigned claims themselves would suffice to cover a possible future litigation cost order. The OLG Düsseldorf confirmed that the relevant moment to assess whether a legal act violates public morals, is the moment the act is performed. Therefore, CDC's statements with regard to its financial position after the assignments took place, were held irrelevant.

Furthermore, the OLG Düsseldorf held that it is not necessary to establish that the parties to the assignments intended to violate public morals. It suffices that they knew of the facts constituting the violation, or that they chose to ignore such facts. In this case, the OLG Düsseldorf held that the shift of the risk involved in litigation was an important purpose of the assignments. It also held that the parties to the assignments knew or should have known and accepted the risk that CDC might have insufficient funding to meet a possible future litigation cost order.

CDC decided not to appeal this judgment by the OLG Düsseldorf, rendering it a final judgment.

The question of the validity of assignments to claim vehicles is at issue in several follow-on proceedings before national courts within the EU. One of them is the paraffin-wax case in the Netherlands. In that case, on 17 December 2014, the District Court of The Hague found that the assignments of damage claims to a different CDC entity were valid under German law. The District Court held that CDC had sufficient funds to meet a possible future litigation cost order at the time of the assignments [See our January 2015 newsletter article].

Team

Related news

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Not so fast – General Court clarifies merger control test

Short Reads - There is no magical number when it comes to “4-to-3” telecom mergers. On 28 May 2020, the EU’s General Court (“Court”) handed down a landmark judgment annulling a 2016 decision of the European Commission (“Commission”) blocking the merger between O2 UK and Three. The judgment fine-tunes the Commission’s application of the “significant impediment to effective competition” test for horizontal mergers and raises the bar for proving the removal of an “important competitive force” as a result of the merger.  

Read more