BIICL has recently worked with the German public body, the Gesellschaft fur internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) on a collective redress project....
In financial market cases, EU States either apply general collective redress mechanisms such as the Dutch settlement mechanism under the WCAM; or sectoral mechanisms created for consumer cases, which include financial market cases; while other countries such as Germany have created specific mechanisms for investor claims. In Germany, test case proceedings under the KapMuG were introduced for mass investor claims to solve common issues of law and fact with binding effect for the investors' individual claims. In some countries attempts to introduce specific provisions for collective redress in the area of capital market law have failed (e.g. UK). As to standing, available mechanisms are split between individually led collective redress and claims brought by associations. The mechanisms used for financial market cases are mostly opt-in but can be opt-out. Both the Netherlands and Germany, for instance, provide for opt-out settlements in financial market cases, yet the conditions are different: the German settlement mechanism is available within the context of opt-in test case proceedings, i.e. it operates amongst identified participants.
Where associations bring claims, many States provide for a requirement that only designated and listed associations or specific bodies such as an ombudsman have standing - as opposed to ad hoc associations purporting to represent the interests of the claimants. Available remedies differ, as well as the procedure for and distribution of compensation. Under German law, for example, the actual compensation claim is an individual claim where consideration is given to the circumstances of the individual litigant as far as these issues are not covered by the preceding binding test case proceedings.
For more details see: