Application for model proceedings under the KapMuG

The Mu­nich Re­gional Court has now ini­ti­ated KapMuG (Cap­ital In­vestor Model Pro­ceed­ings) pro­ceed­ings in the Wir­e­card matter.

In this type of pro­ceed­ing, all claims against EY for dam­ages in con­nec­tion with the Wir­e­card in­solv­ency are to be bundled. The Bav­arian Su­preme Court is re­spons­ible. This court is now to ex­am­ine whether EY breached its du­ties when audit­ing Wirecard’s bal­ance sheets, which could give rise to claims for dam­ages by in­vestors and in­sti­tu­tional in­vestors. If you would like to file your claims for model pro­ceed­ings un­der the Ger­man Cap­ital In­vestor Model Pro­ceed­ings Act (Kapit­alan­leger Musterver­fahrens­ge­setz – KapMuG) without fil­ing your own law­suit, you can find the re­quired doc­u­ments and a sample cost cal­cu­la­tion here.

Legal action against EY

It is pos­sible and sens­ible to file a law­suit against EY even if KapMuG pro­ceed­ings have been ini­ti­ated, as oth­er­wise there is a risk of con­sid­er­able loss of time. If you would like to have your claims for dam­ages ex­amined free of charge and are also in­ter­ested in tak­ing legal ac­tion against EY, you can find more in­form­a­tion here.

Filing of claims in the insolvency proceedings of WIRECARD AG

On June 25, 2020, WIR­E­CARD AG filed an ap­plic­a­tion for the open­ing of in­solv­ency pro­ceed­ings at the com­pet­ent dis­trict court in Mu­nich due to im­min­ent in­solv­ency and over-​indebtedness. We be­lieve that it is worth­while to file your claim in the in­solv­ency pro­ceed­ings of WIR­E­CARD AG. Fur­ther in­form­a­tion can be found here.

What is a capital investor model procedure?

The cap­ital in­vestor model pro­ceed­ings ac­cord­ing to the so-​called Cap­ital In­vestor Model Pro­ceed­ings Act (Kapit­alan­le­ger­musterver­fahrens­ge­setz, KapMuG) are in­ten­ded to make it easier for ag­grieved in­vestors to as­sert claims for dam­ages by en­abling model pro­ceed­ings for false, mis­lead­ing or omit­ted pub­lic cap­ital mar­ket in­form­a­tion, for ex­ample in an­nual fin­an­cial state­ments or stock ex­change prospectuses.

The aim is to bundle the claims of ag­grieved in­vestors and re­solve legal dis­putes in a single trial. Thus, as long as the model pro­ceed­ings are on­go­ing, other law­suits with the same claim are suspended.

In large pro­ceed­ings, such as those against Deutsche Telekom, model pro­ceed­ings can there­fore re­lieve the courts.

KapMuG and Wirecard

In mid-​March 2022, the Mu­nich Re­gional Court ini­ti­ated the model pro­ceed­ings in the Wir­e­card case. In this con­text, the or­der for ref­er­ence, which ini­ti­ates the KapMuG 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 the an­nual re­ports of WIR­E­CARD AG
  • WIR­E­CARD AG was aware by 2015 at the latest that the trust ac­counts did not show the pub­lished bank balances
  • Markus Braun, as a mem­ber of the board of dir­ect­ors, in­cor­rectly rep­res­en­ted or con­cealed the fin­an­cial cir­cum­stances of the com­pany by pub­lish­ing false an­nual re­ports, both WIR­E­CARD AG and Markus Braun ac­ted immorally
  • EY’s li­ab­il­ity for dam­ages, esp. cla­ri­fic­a­tion of in­tent with re­gard to aid­ing and abet­ting the breach of WIR­E­CARD AG’s pub­li­city obligations
  • The price dif­fer­ence dam­age is com­pens­able without con­crete proof of causality

The ques­tion of whether EY com­mit­ted its own breach of duty from in­ten­tional im­moral dam­age is un­for­tu­nately not the sub­ject of the model pro­ceed­ings and, in our opin­ion, not eli­gible for KapMuG.

Model proceedings or filing a lawsuit?

It is ne­ces­sary for every ag­grieved party to file a law­suit them­selves, even des­pite the model pro­ced­ure, since the court ex­pli­citly does not ex­am­ine whether an in­vestor has a claim, but, as shown, only ex­am­ines and de­term­ines cer­tain gen­eral as­pects that af­fect every pro­ced­ure. All those who file claims to the model pro­ceed­ings without fil­ing their own law­suit can thus in­hibit the run­ning of the stat­ute of lim­it­a­tions. But the fil­ing of an in­di­vidual law­suit is still re­quired after the con­clu­sion of the model pro­ced­ure. How­ever, any­one who does not file a law­suit un­til after the con­clu­sion of the model pro­ced­ure loses valu­able time.

We have also col­lec­ted the an­swers to our cli­ents’ most im­port­ant ques­tions in an FAQ.

The law firm Schirp & Partner and the KapMuG

The law firm Schirp & Part­ner has many years of ex­per­i­ence with cap­ital in­vestor model pro­ceed­ings. For ex­ample, At­tor­ney Radtke-​Rieger was sig­ni­fic­antly in­volved in the re­vi­sion of the com­ment­ary on the Cap­ital In­vestor Model Case Act, the stand­ard work on the text of the law. She also wrote the art­icles on the ad­miss­ib­il­ity of the ap­plic­a­tion for a model pro­ced­ure and on its pub­lic­a­tion. In its ref­er­ence de­cision on the de­cisions of the Mu­nich Re­gional Court, the Mu­nich Higher Re­gional Court it­self quoted Ms. Radtke-​Rieger sev­eral times at key points.

WHAT SHOULD INVESTORS DO NOW?

If not already done, in­vestors should con­tinue to con­sider fil­ing suit for dam­ages against EY, whether at their own ex­pense or covered by legal ex­penses in­sur­ance. If you have not already done so: You too can join the plaintiffs’ as­so­ci­ation, for more in­form­a­tion click HERE.

Any in­vestor who is cur­rently re­frain­ing from fil­ing a law­suit and would like to wait un­til after the con­clu­sion of the test case should at least file his claims in the test case to pre­vent the stat­ute of lim­it­a­tions from run­ning. The costs for this are by law a so-​called 0.8 at­tor­ney fee and a 0.5 court fee. HERE you will find an ex­em­plary cal­cu­la­tion and the doc­u­ments we need from you.

In ad­di­tion: We are in prom­ising talks with a renowned Anglo-​Saxon lit­ig­a­tion fin­an­cier and hope to be able to make a fin­an­cing of­fer in the com­ing weeks to all those in­vestors who can­not bear the ne­ces­sary costs them­selves. In any case, you can already re­gister with us free of charge HERE.

How to reach us

Schirp & Part­ner Recht­san­wälte mbB
Leipzi­ger Platz 9
10117 Ber­lin, Germany

Phone: +49 (0)30 – 327 617 0
Fax: +49 (0)30 – 327 617 17
E-​Mail: mail@​schirp.​com

Legal Advisory Label

Please take note that we can not answer consultatively here. If you happen to request that anyways, you may give us full power of attorney. For that, simply download this form, sign it and return it to us.

News

WIRECARD: MUNICH REGIONAL COURT INITIATES MODEL PROCEEDINGS

The de­cision of the Mu­nich I Re­gional Court was pub­lished in the Fed­eral Gaz­ette on March 16, 2022.

Munich Public Prosecutor’s Office I brings charges against ex-​Wirecard CEO

This has now been con­firmed by the pub­lic prosecutor’s of­fice in a press release.

Einladung zum Webinar für Anleger – Vermögensarreste durch die Staatsanwaltschaft Oldenburg bei den Deutsche Lichtmiete

Am 3. März 2022 hat die Staat­san­waltschaft Olden­burg über das Ver­mö­gen zahlreicher Deutsche Licht­mi­ete Gesell­schaften Ver­mö­gensar­reste ver­hängt und alle An­leger der be­t­ro­f­fenen Gesell­schaften aufge­fordert, sich bei der Staat­san­waltschaft Olden­burg unter dem Ak­ten­zeichen 11B AR 100359/21 als so­genan­nte Tatver­let­zte zu melden und mitzuteilen, ob und in welcher Höhe sie einen An­s­pruch auf Er­satz gel­tend machen. Die […]

Aktionsbund Leistungsbilanz 2015

Der Ak­tions­bund Akt­iver An­leger­s­chutz e.V. ist seit 13 Jahren im An­leger­s­chutz un­ter­wegs. Was der AAA in dieser Zeit un­ter­nom­men und er­reicht hat, ist nun er­st­mals in einer Leis­tungs­b­il­anz dok­u­mentiert! Quelle: Aktionsbund

AAA gegen XI. BGH-​Senat – Brief an die Präsidentin des BGH

Vor et­was mehr als einem Jahr hat der XI. Zivilsenat des BGH mit einer über­ras­chenden Entscheidung die Recht­s­prechung der let­zten Jahrzehnte zur Prospek­thaf­tung bei geschlossenen Fonds auf den Kopf ges­tellt und damit dem An­leger­s­chutz einen bru­talen Sch­lag ver­setzt. Seit­dem hat er mit weit­eren Entscheidun­gun­gen mehrmals nachgetre­ten. Zun­ehmend mehr Land- und Ober­landes­gerichte fol­gen der Auffas­sung des […]

Direktinvestments bei der Deutsche Lichtmiete

Bei der Deutsche Licht­mi­ete er­mit­telt die Staat­san­waltschaft, bei ver­schiedenen ihrer Gesell­schaften wurde das vorläufige In­solv­en­zver­fahren er­öffnet. Die An­leger er­hal­ten jetzt An­ge­bote, sich kos­ten­pf­lichtig bei der An­mel­dung von For­der­ungen ver­tre­ten zu lassen. Außer­dem sol­len sie schon mal ein Prozent ihrer An­lage­summe an die THD Treuhand­de­pot GmbH zah­len, damit diese für sie tätig wird. Die An­leger haben […]

All Announcements »

Copyright © Schirp & Partner Solicitors | Legal Notice | Privacy Statement
Zum Seitenanfang