What is to be clarified in the KapMuG?

The or­der for ref­er­ence, which ini­ti­ates the model pro­ceed­ings, is not only dir­ec­ted at de­clar­at­ory tar­gets against EY but also against Wir­e­card AG and its re­spons­ible per­sons, in­clud­ing Markus Braun. Spe­cific­ally, Wir­e­card AG is ac­cused of a breach of dis­clos­ure ob­lig­a­tions, in which EY is al­leged to have been guilty of aid­ing and abet­ting. The test case is to de­cide on the fol­low­ing facts:

• In­cor­rect­ness of Wirecard’s an­nual reports
• Wir­e­card was aware by 2015 at the latest that the trust ac­couunts did not show the pub­lished bank balances
• Markus Braun, as a mem­ber of the man­age­ment board, mis­rep­res­en­ted or con­cealed the company’s fin­an­cial situation
• By pub­lish­ing false an­nual re­ports, both Wir­e­card AG and Markus Braun ac­ted immorally
• EY’s li­ab­il­ity for dam­ages, in par­tic­u­lar cla­ri­fic­a­tion of in­tent with re­gard to aid­ing and abet­ting Wirecard’s breach of its dis­clos­ure obligations
• The price dif­fer­ence dam­age is com­pens­able without con­crete proof of causality