Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T18:55:30.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case Note - The Pixelpark-ruling of the Regional Appellate Court Frankfurt (OLG Frankfurt) of 25 June 2004: The first decision on “Acting in Concert” and its expected effects on German Takeover Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Matthias Casper

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Private Law
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 8 , 01 August 2004 , pp. 941 - 943
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Wertpapiererwerbs- und Übernahmegesetz of 20 September 2001, BGBl. 2001 I, 3822.Google Scholar

2 Since 2002 an equivalent provision can also be found in § 22 sec. 2 Wertpapierhandelsgesetz (WpHG).Google Scholar

3 For a more profound examination of the legally comparative context see: Casper ZIP 2003, 1469, 1470.Google Scholar

4 OLG Frankfurt, decision of 25 June 2004, Az. WpÜG 5, 6 and 8/03, ZIP 2004, 1309; also compare the previous summary proceedings in the same case: OLG Frankfurt ZIP 2003, 1977; AG 2004, 36.Google Scholar

5 Casper ZIP 2003, 1469, 1474; Pentz ZIP 2003, 1478, 1480; Liebscher ZIP 2002, 1005, 1008; Noack in Kapitalmarktrechtskommentar, § 30 Rn. 21 (Schwark ed., 2004).Google Scholar

6 In this sense already: Pentz ZIP 2003, 1478, 1481.Google Scholar