Schrempp no insider information was to behold. Only in the decision of the Supervisory Board of 28 July 2005 this would have arisen, which by the Daimler AG but immediately released. People such as Hyundai would likely agree. This decision, the Supreme Court had lifted and remitted to the OLG Stuttgart in 2008. Then the OLG in a second proceeding came to the decision that at the earliest the decision-making of the Executive Committee of 27 July 2005 is inside information subject to the publication of. It is decisive whether the future event which has seen here by the OLG Stuttgart in the decision of July 28, 2005, was sufficiently likely. Single intermediate steps were not significantly and therefore not taken into account. The German Federal Supreme Court again has stayed the proceedings and submitted to the Court of the European Union (CFI). Because it is crucial for assessing whether intermediate steps must be considered in a temporally extended procedures.
Since 13 WpHG, which defines the concept of insider information, is originated as a Union policy, the intention of the European legislator must be considered. It was necessary therefore to clarify the question, whether a future fact when precise information is, and whether one can assume with reasonable probability, that this circumstance will occur, or whether proceedings stretched intermediate steps, which already exist, can be precise information within the meaning of the directive. The Court of the European Union has decided that also circumstances in an infected process may apply the directive as precise information in order to. Then, the BGH in implementation the execution of European colleagues has lifted the second procedure and remitted to the OLG Stuttgart. The conversation between Prof. Schrempp and the Kopper, the Chairman of the Board is already on May 17, 2005 to therefore as information subject to publishing. It is valid for the OLG Stuttgart now to check whether the required course relevance was WpHG 13, so, to what extent the public announcement was likely significantly to affect the price. It can be summarized, that with information on the whereabouts of Board members carefully to be addressed must and in case of doubt, public disclosure should take place.
The link of the operation with future events is crucial. Here, no overwhelming likelihood is more needed, but the Supreme Court, requires only that is to be expected rather occurs as with a lack of General experience. A failure message may constitute to a compensation for damages according to 37B WpHG otherwise. Bundesgerichtshof, decision of April 23, 2013 – II ZB 7/09 contact: Bernd rechtsanwalts GmbH Wilhelm-Weber-str. 39 37073 Gottingen phone: + 49 (0) 551 495 669-0 fax: + 49 (0) 551 495 669-www.bernd-rechtsanwaelte.de manages the Bernd rechtsanwalts GmbH with locations in Dusseldorf, Gottingen and Hannover 19 and represents companies, initiators, financial institutions and investors in all aspects of economic and capital market law. Focus in particular the concept of capital market products and here on the corporate and project finance, Creation of prospectuses as well as the financial services and capital market law, in particular in connection with the enforcement and defense of claims and disputes with BFin.