Germany: Multi-Party Litigation In Germany: The KapMuG In Action

Last Updated: 10 January 2012

Published in Class Actions, by Federated Press, Spring, 2008

Article by Louise Moher and Lynda Morgan*

The North American-style class action has largely been rejected throughout Europe. In the past 10 years, however, many European countries have developed unique approaches to collective redress. This article is the fourth in a series of articles that examine the development of multi-party litigation in specific jurisdictions outside North America1.

Until recently, German law granted very little in terms of collective redress. 2 The notion of a class action conflicts with Germany's fundamental right to be heard and right to court access by an individual to plead his or her case individually, all of which are constitutionally protected.3 However, when thousands of individual securities claims were filed against Deutsche Telekom, the German legislature was forced to reconsider its conservative position on collective redress. The product of this reflection is The Act on the Initiation of Model Case Proceedings in respect of investors in the Capital Markets (the "KapMuG"4).

The KapMuG is a particularly unique approach to the collective litigation of securities claims. In theory, the KapMuG strikes a balance between the right to be heard and judicial economy and access to justice. Upon closer examination, however, the KapMuG's potential as an effective alternative to the class action is questionable at best.

The Genesis of the KapMuG: the Deutsche Telekom Litigation

In 1999, Deutsche Telekom AG, one of the world's leading telecommunications com.- panies, went public in Germany. In its prospectus issued at the initial public offers, the company valuedits real property holdings en bloc rather than on an individual basis.5 In 2001, these valuations proved to be grossly overstated and Deutsche Telekom wrote down the land values by 2 billion euros. As a result, the stock's value plummeted by 92%. 6

The response of shareholders was overwhelming. Between 2001 and 2003, over 13,000 individual claims against Deutsche Telekom alleging misrepresentation were filed with the Regional Court Frankfurt am Main, involving 754 different attorneys. 7 Even more overwhelming was the fact that a single judge had exclusive jurisdiction over every claim. It was estimated that the resolution of these cases would take at least 15 years. 8

Between 2001 and 2004, the individual claims idled as new claims continued to stream in.. Frustrated with the delay, 11 plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court alleging that the delay constituted a denial of justice. The Court rejected the complaint but demanded an expedited hearing of the cases. 9

The Statutory Regime Under the KapMuG

In response, the German legislature enacted the KapMuG, 10 a test project of model case proceedings. The KapMuG came into effect on November 1, 2005 and will expire by its sunset clause on November 1, 2010, unless incorporated into the Zivilprozessordung (ZPO), the German Code of Civil Procedure. The legislation applies strictly to: (1) claims for compensation of damages due to false, misleading or omitted public capital markets information; and (2) claims to fulfilment of contract, which are based on an offer under the Securities Acquisition and Takeover Act. 11 The KapMuG applies to the Deutsche Telekom claims even though it was enacted after the individual claims were filed.

The basic premise of the KapMuG is that a model case is chosen from individual claims, the similar issues-are decided and the outcome is then applied to all registered individual cases. The KapMuG contemplates three procedural stages: an application by the parties to use the procedure; the trial of the model case questions; and the application of the model case decision to the other individual cases.

The first stage .is essentially the threshold requirement. Either a plaintiff who has filed an individual claim, or a defendant, applies for the model case proceeding to the court of first instance by proposing model questions, which are similar to common issues in a North American class action. 12 The applicant must show that the proposed model questions "may have significance for other similar cases beyond the individual dispute concerned. ''13 Cases are considered "similar" if they relate to the "same underlying circumstances. ''14 Admissible applications are entered into the Complaint Registry, 15 which is accessible to the public online. 16 An application may be inadmissible if, for example, it has been made. for the purpose of delaying proceedings or the evidence described in the application is unsuitable. 17 At least nine other applications relating to the same subject matter must be filed within four months.

If the threshold is met, then the second stage begins, in which the model questions are submitted to the Court of Appeals and determined by a trial of the model claimant's action. The Court selects the model claimant by considering the amount of each plaintiff's claim as well as any agreement that has been reached between the claimants. TM

In the Deutsche Telekom litigation, for example, the Court selected the model claimant based on the large size of his claim (1.65 million euros), and the fact that his claim covered the majority of issues relevant to the dispute. 19 This provision is intended to prevent the "race to the courtroom." The determination of the model claimant may not be appealed.

During the .trial of the model questions, all other proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the model proceeding, 20 However, individual claimants not already in the registry may opt in to the proceeding at any time during, the trial of the model questions.

Once a decision on the model questions is rendered, those claimants who have opted in to theprocedure are bound by the decision. 21 It has been suggested, however, that parties are bound by the decision only to the extent that they were able to participate in the model proceeding. Therefore, a claimant who opted in late into the trial may theoretically not be bound by the decision. 22

With regards to costs, the general "loser pays" principle applies. If the model claimant loses, however, costs of the model trial are shared pro rata by all claimantsin the registry in relation to the value of each party' s alleged claim. 23 An interested party who withdraws his or her claim after the model case proceedings have started is bound bythe decision but is not required to share in the costs.

The Appeals Court's decision on the model questions may be appealed by all parties, including the claimants in the stayed actions. 24 While the appeal is pending, all other claims remain stayed.

At the third stage, the decision of the Appeals Court is applied by the trial courts to the stayed individual actions. Each case is determined on an individual basis.

The Devil Is in the Details

At first glance, the model proceedings approach bears some resemblance to an opt-in version of the North American class action. Upon closer examination, however, several details of the KapMuG pose significant challenges to its success.

A principal challenge is the active role played by "interested parties" in the model proceedings. In order to preserve the claimant's right to be heard, each claimant in the stayed actions is granted "interested party" status, which entitles them to produce materials and make submissions at the model case .trial, provided their statements and actions are not contrary to those of the model claimant. 25

Interested parties may also expand the subject matter of.the model proceedings if the court finds that the additional issues are relevant to the model questions. 26 This means that each and every claimant- over 17,000 in the Telekom litigation- have the right to file written materials and make submissions at each stage of the model trial. This special statushas the potential to lengthen and complicate the model trial interminably.

Another significant challenge is that settlement, which is the end result of most North American class actions, is virtually impossible under the KapMuG. Subsection 14(3) of the KapMuG provides that "if all interested parties do not consent to the settlement, conclusion of model case proceedings by way of settlement shall be inadmissible. ''27 The power of the representative plaintiff to settle a class action in North America has prevented many a lengthy common issues trial and individual issues trials. The KapMuG's requirement that all claimants must agree to a settlement renders protracted litigation inevitable.

Finally, there is little financial incentive for lawyers to take on the important role as counsel for the model claimant. The KapMuG makes no provision for contingency fee arrangements, which are prohibited under section 49b of the German Act on Lawyers' Remuneration. While the Federal Supreme Court found in March of 2007 that this prohibition violated German constitutional law and gave the legislature one year to amend the law, 28 it appears that contingency fee arrangements will only be permitted in extremely limited circumstances. Note that third party funding is available in Germany, in which specialized litigation financing entities pay court and attorney fees in exchange for up to 50% of the award received if the client is successful. 29 However, in the absence of special provision for contingency fee arrangements, the only financial incentive for plaintiff counsel-to engage the KapMuG is to recover fees.

The KapMuG in Practice

In light of the aforementioned "quirks" of the KapMuG, it is no surprise that the implementation of this legislation has encountered significant obstacles. The lack of progress in the Deutsche Telekom litigation is demonstrative. This litigation is ongoing, with 17,000 shareholders represented.by more than 800 lawyers, and claims totalling an estimated 80 million euros. 30 The Regional Appellate Court in Frankfurt must decide a total of 33 issues relating to the model question. 31 The trial of these issues began on April 7, 2008, and was the biggest trial of its kind in German history. The first week of the trial was held in a city hall that seated 800 people. 32 It is estimated that the model trial may take several years. This is particularly striking when compared to the American experience, where Telekom has already settled a class action with American investors for $120 million. 33

An abundance of other model case proceedings under the KapMuG does not appear forthcoming. As of 2007, only 53 applications had been registered in the electronic register of claims and the majority of these related to the Deutsche Telekom litigation. 34 Among the other registered claims, many did not proceed because nine similar cases were not filed within the four-month limitation period. 35

The KapMuG has proved to be more useful where the case weighed in favour of the defendant. The first case to be decided under the KapMuG involved DaimlerChrysler AG. The plaintiff investors alleged that the company had breached its disclosure obligations by failing to inform them immediately of the resignation of its CEO, the announcement of which triggered a dramatic change in the stock price.

On February 15, 2007, the Regional court in Stuttgart held that no such breach had occurred. 36 As a result, the court of first instance dismissed, the claims of all the individual investor claimants. This case is an example where the KapMuG has successfully resolved a multitude of claims in one trial, but it is a rare exception to the overall experience.

Conclusion" the Sun Will Likely Set on the KapMuG

The KapMuG, created by the German legislature in response to the overwhelming Deutsche Telekom litigation, is an attractive concept. In broad strokes, the determination of common issues and the subsequent application of that decision to individual cases bear some resemblance to a North American class action. However, the devil is in the details. The unanimous consent requirement for settlement, the role of the claimants as "interested parties" and the prohibition on contingency fees provide little incentive for would-be model claimant lawyers to utilize the KapMuG.

Practitioner opinion is that "the KapMuG will only be relevant in a limited number of exceptional cases ''37 and the ability of the model case proceeding to save time and money is viewed with skepticism. 38 This opinion appears to be well-founded, given the lack of progress in the Deutsche Telekom model trial and the lack of a groundswell of other model proceeding cases seeking to utilize the KapMuG.

In light of the fact that the European Commission in its 2008 White Paper has strongly advocated for European Union-wide legislation permitting opt-in securities class actions that more resemble North American class actions, 39 the sun will likely set on the KapMuG in 2010.

*The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Thomas Kreifels of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, who provided background information on German law and the KapMuG.

Footnotes

1 See James M. Newland, Brian P. Moher and Donna A. Polgar, "Group Litigation in the United Kingdom: a Sheep in 'Woolf's' Clothing" (2006) 5 Class Action 310; James M. Newland, Brian P. Moher and Jason W. Reynar, "A Touch of Dutch: Group Actions in the Netherlands" (2007) 2 Class Action 394; and James M. Newland, Brian P. Moher and Rosie J. Kogan, "Group Actions in France and Current Initiatives for Reform" (2007) 5 Class Action 338.

2 The German Code of Civil Procedure allows for the joinder of claims, and the Verbandsklage allows for group complaints to be brought by an association or interest group in particular areas, such as consumer protection and unfair business practices. Claimants may also assign their rights to a third party, who then pursues the claim on behalf of all those who have assigned claims. Further information on collective redress in Germany may be found in Dietmar Baetge, "Class Actions, Group Litigation & Other Forms of Collective Litigation Germany" online at http://globalclassactions.stanford.edu/PDF/Germany_ National_Report.pdf, at 4-12 (hereinafter "Class Actions, Group Litigation & Other Forms of Collective Litigation"].

3 The right to be heard is called "Recht auf rechtliches Gehor," in German, under Article 20, Section 3 of the German ConstitUtion. See, also, Hanno Merkt "Managing Investor Mass Claims in Germany: Group Litigation under the new Investor-Sampel-Proceeding- Law (KapMuG)" (2006) 17 Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics 117, at 121 (hereinafter "Managing Investor Claims").

4 The KapMuG's full German name is "Kapitalanleger- Musterverfahrensgesetz."

5 Moritz Balz and Felix Blobel, "Collective Litigation German Style: The Act on Model Proceedings in Capital Market Disputes" in Eckart Gottschalk et al., ed., Conflict of Law in a Globalized World (Cambridge University Press, 2007) 126, at 132 (hereinafter "Collective Litigation German Style").

6 "Managing Investor Claims," supra note 3 at 117.

7,,Collective Litigation German Style," supra note 5 at 132.

8 Michael Stfirner, "Model Case Proceedings in the Capital Markets Tentative Steps Towards Group Litigation in Germany" (2007) 26 C.J.Q. 250 at 253. [hereinafter "Model Case Proceedings"].

9 "Class Actions, Group Litigation & Other Forms of Collective Litigation," supra note 2 at 9.

10 The English version of this legislation can be found online at www.bmj.bund.de/kapmug.

11 The Act on the Initiation of Model Case Proceedings in respect of investors in the Capital Markets (Gesetz zur Einfiihrung yon Kapitalanleger-Musterverfahren- KapMuG, published in the Federal Law Gazette, BGBI 2005 I, at 2437) ss. 1(1) and 1(2) (hereinafter "KapMuG").

12 Ibid., s. 1.

13 Ibid., s. 1(2).

14 Ibid., ss. 2(1), 5.

15 Ibid., s. 2.

16 www.ebundesanzeiger.de (in German only).

17 KapMuG, supra note 11 at ss. 1(3)1-5.

18 Ibid., ss. 8(2)(1) and 8(2)(2).

19 "Class Actions, Group Litigation & Other Forms of Collective Litigation," supra note 2 at 16.

20 KapMuG, supra note 11 at s. 7.

21 Ibid., ss. 16(1)3 and 16(2).

22 "Class Actions, Group Litigation & Other Forms of Collective Litigation," supra note 2 at 20.

23 KapMuG, supra note 11 at s. 17(3).

24 "Model Case Proceedings," supra note 8 at 263.

25 KapMuG, supra note at s. 12.

26 Ibid., s. 13.

27 Ibid., s. 14(3).

28 "Class Actions and Third Party Funding of Litigation: An Analysis Across Europe," June 2007, online at http://www.freshfields.com/publications/pdfs/ 2007/junl 8/18825.pdf, at 31.

29 Ibid. at 31.

30 David Gow, "17,000 Shareholders Begin Action against Deutsche Telekom," The Guardian (Wednesday April 9, 2008), online at http://www.guardian.co. uk/business/2008/apr/09/deutschetelekom.europe/print [hereinafter "17,000 Shareholders Begin Action against Deutsche Telekom"].

31 "Model Case Proceedings," supra note 8 at 253.

32 "17,000 Shareholders Begin Action against Deutsche Telekom," supra note 30.

33 The U.S. certification decision may be found at Deutsche Telekom A G Securities Litigation, 229 F. Supp. 2d 277 (N.Y. 2002).

34,,Collective Litigation German Style," supra note 5 at 147.

35 Klaus Braunig and Thomas Lfibbig, "Private Enforcement in the European Union Pitfalls and Opportunities," online at http://www.bdi.eu/study_ private_enforcement/, at 20 [hereinafter "Private Enforcement"].

36 Mark C. Hilgard and Jan Kraayvanger, "Class Actions and Mass Actions in Germany," Litigation Committee Newsletter, IBA Legal Practice Division, September 2007.

37 "Private Enforcement," supra note 35 at 50.

38 "Managing Investor Claims," supra note 3 at 126.

39 Commission of the European Communities, Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules COM (2008) 165 and Commission Staff Working Paper accompanying the White Paper, SEC (2008)404 at 4.

http://lernersclassactiondefence.ca/

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions