The German Capital Markets Model Case Act (KapMuG): a European role model for increasing the efficiency of capital markets? Analysis and suggestions for reform

References

• Alexander, J. C. 1991. Do the merits matter? A study of settlements in securities class actions. Stanford Law Review, 43, no. 3: 497–598. doi: 10.2307/1228912
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bai, L., Cox, J., Thomas, R., R. 2010. Lying and getting caught: An empirical study of the effect of securities class action settlements on targeted firms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 158: 1877–914.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bajaj, M., Mazumdar, S., Sarin, A. 2003. Securities class action settlements: An empirical analysis. Santa Clara Law Review, 43: 1001–33.
   Google Scholar
• van den Bergh, R., Keske, S. 2009. Rechtsökonomische Aspekte von Sammelklagen. In Auf dem Weg zu einer europäischen Sammelklage ed. CasperM. A.JanssenA.PohlmannP.SchulzeR., 17–40. München: sellier. European law publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Bergmeister, F. 2009. Kapitalanleger-Musterverfahrensgesetz (KapMuG), Tü bingen: Mohr Siebeck.
   Google Scholar
• Bigus, J., Schäfer, H. B. 2007. Die Haftung des Wirtschaftsprü fers am Primär- und Sekundärmarkt - eine rechtsökonomische Analyse. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 77: 19–49. doi: 10.1007/s11573-007-0003-x
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, W. 1986. Economic loss: Economic theory and emerging doctrine. In The law of torts, policies and trends in liability for damage to property and economic loss ed. FurmstonM., London: Duckworth.
   Google Scholar
• Bloomenthal, H. S. 2007. Securities law handbook, New York: Clark Boardman Company.
   Google Scholar
• Bundesgerichtshof. 2008. Decision of 7 January 2008 (‘Comroad VI’). Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht 382–85.
   Google Scholar
• Bundesgerichtshof. 2011. Decision of 13 Dec 2011, file no. XI ZR 51/10 (written judgment not yet available).
   Google Scholar
• Bundestag-Drucksache 2005. Drucksache 15/5091. Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Einführung von Kapitalanleger-Musterverfahren, Köln: Bundesanzeiger Verlagsgesellschaft mbH.
   Google Scholar
• Choi, S., Thompson, R. 2006. Securities litigation and its lawyers: Changes during the first decade after the PSLRA. Columbia Law Review, 106: 1489–533.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, S. J., Nelson, K. K., Pritchard, A. 2009. The screening effect of the private securities litigation reform act. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6, no. 1: 35–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01137.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coffee, J. C. 2006. Reforming the securities class action: An essay on deterrence and its implementation. Columbia Law Review, 106: 1534–586.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, J., Thomas, R. S. 2009. Mapping the American shareholder litigation experience: A survey of empirical studies of the enforcement of the U.S. securities law. European Company & Financial Law Review, 6: 164–203.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, J. D. 1997. Making securities fraud class actions virtuous. Arizona Law Review, 39: 497–524.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, J. D., Thomas, R. S. 2002. Leaving money on the table: Do institutional investors fail to file claims in securities class actions?. Washington University Law Quarterly, 80: 855–81.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, J. D., Thomas, R. S., Kiku, D. 2006. Does the plaintiff matter? An empirical analysis of lead plaintiffs in securities class actions. Columbia Law Review, 106: 1587–640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Čulinović-Herc, E., and M. Braut. 2009. Recent developments in judicial settlement of disputes involving mass shareholder claims towards listed companies: Global, European and Croatian perspective. Paper presented on the 7th International Conference Economic integration, competition and cooperation, Opatija.
   Google Scholar
• Dalla Pellegrina, L., Saraceno, M. 2011. Securities class actions: A helping hand for bank regulators in trouble?. Review of Law & Economics, 7: 214–42. doi: 10.2202/1555-5879.1459
   Google Scholar
• Dari-Mattiacci, G., Schäfer, H.-B. 2007. The core of pure economic loss: A law and economic perspective. International Review of Law and Economics, 27: 8–28. doi: 10.1016/j.irle.2007.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demougin, D., Fluet, C. 2006. Preponderance of evidence. European Economic Review, 50: 963–76. doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2004.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, P. 1974. Single activity accidents. Journal of Legal Studies, 3: 107–64. doi: 10.1086/467511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Easterbrock, F., Fischel, D. 1985. Optimal damages in securities cases. University of Chicago Law Review, 52: 611–52. doi: 10.2307/1599630
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehricke, U. 2005. Deutschland. In Prospekt- und Kapitalmarktinformationshaftung. Recht und Reform in der Europ äischen Union, der Schweiz und den USA ed. HoptK. J.VoigtH. C., 187–326. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
   Google Scholar
• Feess, E. 2011. Negligence standards and care levels when damages depend on sales prices. European Journal of Law and Economics, 12: 234–51.
   Google Scholar
• Feess, E., Muehlheusser, G., Wohlschlegel, A. 2011. Screening in courts: On the joint use of negligence and causation standards. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 27, no. 2: 350–75. doi: 10.1093/jleo/ewp027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilead, I. 1997. Tort law and internalization: The gap between private loss and social costs. International Review of Law and Economics, 17, no. 4: 589–608. doi: 10.1016/S0144-8188(97)00038-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellgardt, A. 2008. Kapitalmarktdeliktsrecht, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
   Google Scholar
• Hensler, D., Pace, N. M., Dombey-Moore, B., Giddens, B., Gross, J., Moller, E. K. 2000. Class action dilemmas: Pursuing public goals for provate gain, Santa Monica: Rand Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, E. 2010. The rule 10b-5 suit: Loss causation pleading standards in private securities claims after Dura Pharmaceuticals. Inc. v. Broudo. Fordham Law Review, 78: 2659–700.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodges, C. 2009. Country report: England and Wales, Annals of the American. Academy of Political and Social Science, 622: 105–13. doi: 10.1177/0002716208328286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennings, J.N., S. Kedia, and S. Rajgopal. 2011. The deterrent effects of SEC enforcement and class action litigation. SSRn working paper series. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1868578.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. F., Nelson, K. K., Pritchard, A. C. 2007. Do the merits matter more? The impact of the private securities litigation reform act. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 23, no. 3: 627–52. doi: 10.1093/jleo/ewm015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolstad, C. D., Ulen, T. S., Johnson, G. V. 1990. Ex post liability for harm vs. ex ante safety regulation: substitutes or complements. American Economic Review, 80, no. 4: 888–901.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landes, W., Posner, R. 1987. The economic structure of tort law, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, P. H. 2009. Country report Sweden. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622: 231–41. doi: 10.1177/0002716208328548
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lys, T., Watts, R. L. 1994. Lawsuits against auditors. Journal of Accounting Research, 32: 65–93. doi: 10.2307/2491440
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier-Reimer, G., Paschos, N. 2008. Haftung für fehlerhafte Sekund ärmarktpublizität. In Handbuch der Kapitalmarktinformation ed. HabersackM.MülbertP. O.SchlittM., 599–687. Munich: C.H. Beck.
   Google Scholar
• Miceli, T. 2006. On negligence rules and self-selection. Review of Law & Economics, 2: 349–61. doi: 10.2202/1555-5879.1085
   Google Scholar
• Mülbert, P. O., Steup, S. 2005. Emittentenhaftung für fehlerhafte Kapitalmarktinformation am Beispiel der fehlerhaften Regelpublizität. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Bankenrecht. Wertpapiermitteilungen, 59: 1633–55.
   Google Scholar
• Parisi, V., Palmer, V., Bussani, M. 2007. The comparative law and economics of pure economic loss. International Review of Law and Economics, 27: 29–48. doi: 10.1016/j.irle.2007.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pritchard, A. C., Sale, H. A. 2005. What counts as fraud? An empirical study of motions to dismiss under the private securities litigation reform act. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2: 125–49. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2005.00033.x
   Google Scholar
• Rotter, K. 2011. Der Referentenentwurf des BMJ zum KapMuG - Ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung. Verbraucher und Recht, December: 443–49.
   Google Scholar
• Schäfer, H. B. 2004. Efficient third party liability of auditors in tort law and contract law. Supreme Court Economic Review, 12: 181–208.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, R. 1998. Auditors’ liability, vague due care, and auditing standards. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 11, no. 2: 183–207. doi: 10.1023/A:1008220317852
   Google Scholar
• Schweizer, U. 2009. Legal damages for losses of chances. International Review of Law and Economics, 29: 153–60. doi: 10.1016/j.irle.2008.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweizer, U. 2010. Damages for breach of duty in corporate disclosure. Working Paper. University of Bonn.
   Google Scholar
• Sethe, R. 2009. § 15a, § 15b, § 37a, § 37b, § 37h WpHG. In Wertpapierhandelsgesetz ed. AssmannH. D.SchneiderU. H., 562–763. Köln: Verlag. Dr. Otto Schmidt.
   Google Scholar
• Shavell, S. 1985. Uncertainty over causation and the determination of civil liability. Journal of Law and Economics, 28: 587–609. doi: 10.1086/467102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shavell, S. 2004. Foundations of economic analysis of law, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tzankova, I., Scheurleer, D. L. 2009. The Netherlands. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622: 149–60. doi: 10.1177/0002716208328389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, G. 2008. Schadensberechnung im Kapitalmarktrecht. Zeitschrift fü r Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht, 37, no. 4: 495–532.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, G. 2011. Collective redress – Categories of loss and legislative options. Law Quarterly Review, 142: 55–82.
   Google Scholar
• Willging, T.E., L. Hooper, and R.J. Niemic. 1996. Empirical study of class actions in four federal district courts. Final report to the advisory committee on civil rules, Federal Judicial Center. http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/rule23.pdf/$file/rule23.pdf.
   Google Scholar