Skip navigation


Author: Eva Lein

VII. Case law




CDC Antitrust Case - assignment

OLG Düsseldorf 18. Februar 2015 (Az. VI U 3/14), LG Düsseldorf, 17. Dezember 2013 (Az. 37 O 200/09).

CDC initiated proceedings against a cement cartel as assignee of a bundle of individual damages claims. The claim was ultimately dismissed due to a lack of upfront guarantee by CDC to cover all adverse costs at the time of the assignments.

Deutsche Telekom Case -KapMuG

16.5.2012 23 Kap 1/06; 21.10.2014, BGH XI ZB 12/12

17,000 investors claimed damages from Deutsche Telekom due to wrong information in the prospectus used by Telekom for their third initial public offering. Due to practical needs triggered by the sheer amount of claims, the KapMuG was introduced in 2005 by the legislator and the case was referred to the OLG Frankfurt under the new Act. In 2012, the case was dismissed but went to the BGH where it was held in 2014 that the prospectus was partially wrong and misleading. In 2016, the OLG Frankfurt decided in favour of the plaintiffs

Volkswagen Cases -KapMuG

Volkswagen shares dropped considerably in 2015 when the use of illegal devices to manipulate emissions became known. Several KapMuG actions have been initiated in Germany on behalf of VW investors. See eg Quinn Emanuel/ Bentham Europe, €700m claim: California State Teachers' Retirement SystemSee eg. 3,25 billion claim of 277 institutional investors brought by Tilp, joining 170 private investors in the regional court in Braunschweig.

Corralcredit Bank AG -KapMuG

BGH II ZB 24/14

KapMuG action based on failure to publish ad hoc announcements. Decision in favour of plaintiffs, appeal pending.

Hypo Real Estate - KapMuG

OLG Munich Kap 3/10; BGH XI ZB 13/14

Failure to publish ad hoc announcements; misleading information about certificates held regarding the US subprime marketDecision in favour of plaintiffs, appeal pending.

Daimler Case - KapMuG

LG Stuttgart, 21 O 408/05; OLG Stuttgart 20 Kap1/08; BGH II ZB 7/09

Failure to publish ad hoc announcement concerning the resignation of the chairman of the supervisory board. See also CJEU C-19/11. The action was dismissed by the OLG but was referred back already twice by the BGH.

Sec. 10 UWG cases

more than 12 since 2004

Several cases have been brought concerning the skimming off of profits following unfair competitive behaviour, although such cases do not present any financial incentive for the associations bringing the claim as the profits go to the Treasury. See eg. District Court Bonn (12 O 33/05); District Court Munich I, 33 O 17282/07; and 37 O 16359/13 or District Court Hannover 18 O 36/15. Many of these cases were brought by the Vzbv, ie the federal consumer association.


The Law and You: Consumer Redress and SMEs

The Law and You: Consumer Redress and SMEs...


Merricks v Mastercard Inc : Collective Actions Re-invigorated

Merricks v Mastercard Inc : Collective Actions Re-invigorated...