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

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring