- Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading (recently amended by the Directive 2010/73/EC), OJ L345/64.
- See, eg, Regulation 809/2004, of 29 April 2004, implementing Directive 2003/71/EC L149/1.
- See E Ferran, “Cross-border Offers of Securities in the EU: The Standard Life Flotation” (2007) 4 European Company and Financial Law Review 461, 474.
- See, for a detailed comparative law study, KJ Hopt and HC Voight, Prospekt und Kapitalmarktinformationshaftung (Mohr Siebeck, 2005), passim; recently and with further references, W-G Ringe and A Hellgardt, “The International Dimension of Issuer Liability – Liability and Choice of Law from a Trans atlantic Perspective” (2011) 31(1) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 23.
- See P Tschäpe, R Kramer and O Glück, “Die ROM II-Verordnung – Endlich ein einheitliches Kollisionsrecht für die gesetzliche Prospekthaftung?” [2008] Recht der Internationalen Wirstschaft 657, 659; J von Hein, “Die Inter nationale Prospekthaftung im Lichte der Rom II-Verordnung“, in H Baum et al (eds), Perspektiven des Wirtschftsrechts. Deutsches, europäisches und internationales Handels-, Gesellschafts-und Kapi-talmarkrecht – Beiträge fur KJ Hopt aus Anlass seiner Emeritierung (de Gruyter, 2008), 371, 373, with further references.
- See Ferran, supra n 3, 464.
- Regulation (EC) No 593/2005 of 17 June 2008, on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ L177/6.
- Regulation (ED) No 846/2007, of 11 July 2007, on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), OJ L199/40.
- Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, of 22 December 2000, on juris diction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L12/1.
- The Court has expressed this idea in negative terms: “that the phrase ‘matters relating to contract’, as used in Article 5(1) of the Convention, is not to be understood as covering a situation in which there is no obligation freely assumed by one party towards the other” (Case C 26/91, Handte v TMCS [1992] ECR I-03967, para 15; and Case C-51/97, Réunion européenne SA and Others v Spliethoff's [1998] ECR I-06511, para 17).
- Note that the Rome I Regulation applies to the contractual relationships established in the context of an IPO. Furthermore, Art 6.4(d) explicitly refers to the offer to the public of transferable securities. The purpose of such provision is to exclude the application of the special rule on consumer contracts, since the Regulation deemed necessary to ensure uniformity in the terms and conditions of an issuance or an offer (see recital 28). On this provision, see F Garcimartín, “The Rome I Regulation: Exceptions to the Rule in Consumer Contracts and Financial Instruments” (2009) 5 Journal of Private International Law 85, 91–95.
- See with further references, C Benicke, “Prospektpfl icht und Prospekthaftung bei grenzüberschreitenden Emissionen”, in HP Mansel et al (eds), Festschrift für E Jayme (Sellier, 2004), 25, 31; S Grundmann, “Deutsches Anlegerschutzrecht in inter-nationalen Sachverhalten – Von internationalen Schuld-und Gesellschaftsrecht zum internationalen Martkrecht” [1990] Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 283, 310; H Kronke, “Capital Markets and Confl icts of Laws” [2000] Recueil des Cours 286 245, 308; MK Oulds, “Prospekthaf-tung bei grenzüberschreitenden Kapitalmarkttransaktionen” [2008] Wertpapier Mitteilungen 1573, 1577; Ringe and Hellgardt, supra n 4, 12; von Hein, supra n 5, 375–76; C Weber “Interna tionale Prospekthaftung nach der Rom II-Verordnung” [2008] Wertpapier Mitteilungen 1581, 1582.
- TMC Arons, “All Roads Lead to Rome: Beware of the Con sequences! The Law Applicable to Prospectus Liability Claims under the Rome II Regulation” [2008] Nederlands international privaatrecht 481, 483.
- There is unanimity among legal scholars on this point, see Arons, Ibid, 482; von Hein, supra n 5, 379–85; P Huber, Rome II Regulation (Sellier, 2008), 48; A Junker, “Der Reformbedarf im Internationalen Deliksrecht der Rom II-Verordnung drei Jahre nach ihrer Verabscheidung” [2010] Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 257, 261; P Mankowski, “Finanzmarktverträge”, in CH Reithmann and D Martiny (eds), Internationales Vertragsrecht (Schmidt, 7th edn, 2010), 1037, 1081–82; Ringe and Hellgardt, supra n 4, 20; Tschäpe, Kramer and Glück, supra n 5, 661.
- See A Dickinson, The Rome II Regulation – The Law Applicable to Non-contractual Obligations (Oxford University Press, 2008), 211–12; Von Hein, supra n 5, 381–83; Ringe and Hellgardt, supra n 4, 20.
- See also Huber, supra n 14, 84, 318; Ringe and Hellgardt, supra n 4, 21; Tschäpe, Kramer and Glück, supra n 5, 663. For similar reasons, Art 14 of the Rome II Regulation plays a very limited role, see Junker, supra n 14, 262, with further references.
- Ringe and Hellgardt, supra n 4, 22; Weber, supra n 12, 1585; Tschäpe, Kramer and Glück, supra n 5, 662.
- [2004] ECR I-06009.
- See Arons, supra n 13, 484; Ringe and Hellgardt, supra n 4, 22.
- See Arons, supra n 13, 484; Ferran, supra n 3, 483–84; Von Hein, supra n 5, 389; Junker, supra 14, 263; Oulds, supra n 12, 1577; Ringe and Hellgardt, supra n 4, 22; Tschäpe, Kramer and Glück, supra n 5, 661–62; Weber, supra n 12, 1585.
- See K Bischoff, “Internationale Börsenprospekthaftung” [2002] Die Aktiengesellschaft. Zeitschrift für das gesamte Aktienwesen 489, 493–94; Grundmann, supra n 12, 305–08; Kronke, supra n 12, 311; Mankowski, supra n 14, 1082.
- See Mankowski, supra n 14, 1082
- See, with further references, Weber, supra n 12, 1586–87; Junker, supra n 14, 263.
- See Benicke, supra n 12, 33; P Kiel, Internationales Kapitalan-legerschutzrecht (de Gruyter, 1994), 295–96; Ringe and Hellgardt, supra n 4, 30; Weber, supra n 12, 1587.
- See, with further references, Benicke, supra n 12, 36; Vo n Hein, supra n 5, 394–95; Oulds, supra n 12, 1574; Ringe and Hellgardt, supra n 4, 32–33; Tschäpe, Kramer and Glück, supra n 5, 663–67.
- See inter alia Benicke, supra n 12, 36.
- See von Hein, supra n 5, 394–95; Ringe and Hellgardt, supra n 4, 33.
- See Tschäpe, Kramer and Glück, supra n 5, 666.
- See, with further references, Arons, supra 13, 484; Mankowski, supra n 14, 1081; Weber, supra n 12, 1583.
- See also Advocate Generaís Opinion Cruz Villalón, in Cases C-509/09 eDate Advertising and 161/10 Martinez, para 68–81, at www.curia.europa.eu.
- In fact, Art 17 of the Rome II Regulation is a consequence of such approach: regulatory rules (rules of safety and conduct) shall be taken into account but within the scope of the applica ble law as determined by the loci damni.
- That is why the idea that “Die Prospekthaftung folgt dann der Prospektpfl icht” may be pertinent within a system where the scope of application of the private-law rules were determined by the scope of application of the regulatory rules, but this is not the case for the EU private international law.
- See F Garcimartín, “Harmonization, State of Origin or State of Destination: An Outline of the EU Legislatoŕs Dilemma from an Economic Standpoint”, in M Audit, H Muir Watt and E Pataut (eds), Confl icts de Lois et Régulation Économique (LGDJ, 2008), 253, passim; recently, G Mitkute and J Tanega, “Asset Protection Trust: A Legal and Economic Analysis of Competing Regulatory Frameworks” (2011) 5 Law and Financial Markets Review 46, 52–53. But see von Hein, supra n 5, 394, Benicke, supra n 12, 36; Tschäpe, Kramer and Glück, supra n 5, 667.
- Actually, in a regime of perfect competition, the content of the legal framework, including the prospectus liability rules, would be reflected in the price. Therefore, a different legal treatment would be economically justified.
- Note that this is also a typical situation where a transfer of the competence for the approval of the prospectus would take place (from Spain to Portugal, see Art 13.5 of the Prospectus Directive) and the regulatory rules would coincide with the private-law rules.
- See Arons, supra n 13, 484; Weber, supra n 12, 1587.
- For an elaboration of this concept from a confl ict-of-law perspective, see F Garcimartín, “Cross-border Listed Companies” [2007] Recueil des Cours 9, 91–93, with further references.
- Note, however, that even if the intermediary is located in Country A and the securities are also listed in Country A, the intermediary may give the buying order in a regulated market of Country B. In this case, the law applicable would be the law of the latter. It is true that this solution may seem arbitrary since with regard to retail investors, they do not normally know is which market the buying order was actually placed. But one can always invoke the “escape clause” to avoid unreasonable results.
- See Arons, supra n 13, 484.
Law and Financial Markets Review
Volume 5, 2011 - Issue 6