No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Case Note—Judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice of Germany) of 22 March 2011: Passion to Inform—BGH Expands Banks' Advisory Duties
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
In February 2011, a Bundesgerichtshof [BGH—Federal Court of Justice] decision caused a great media echo. The court convicted Germany's largest bank to pay about half a million Euros in damages for the breach of advisory duties. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, banking law evolved fast in German courts. The recent decision raises new questions concerning the advisory duties of a bank, when offering financial products to its clients. The article gives an insight to various factual backgrounds, which, as financial products of today, are somewhat complex. Another interesting aspect to this case is that there are numerous decisions of lower courts that dealt with the same product as the BGH did. The ruling is considered to be far-reaching and groundbreaking. This case note will look into the question how far this is true.
- Type
- Developments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2011 by German Law Journal GbR
References
1 See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH- Federal Court of Justice], Reference Number (Ref. No.) XI ZR 33/10 (Mar. 22, 2011), available at: http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgibin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=pm&Datum=2011&Sort=3&nr=55748&linked=urt&Blank=1&file=dokument.pdf (last accessed: 4 July 2011).Google Scholar
2 See Bund der Steuerzahler Deutschland (Tax Payers Association), Schwarzbuch des Bundes der Steuerzahler - Die öffentliche Verschwendung (Tax Payers Association's Black Book – The Public Waste) 29 (2008). Available at http://www.steuerzahler.de/files/15735/Schwarzbuch2008.pdf (last accessed: 4 July 2011).Google Scholar
3 See Oberlandesgericht [OLG-Regional Higher Court of Appeal] Naumburg, Ref. No. 2 U 111/04 (Mar. 24, 2005), 17 Zeitschrift für Bankrecht und Bankwirtschaft (ZBB) 360-367 (2005); OLG Bamberg, Ref. No. 4 U 92/08 (May 11, 2009), 30 Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (ZIP) 1082-1097 (2009); OLG Frankfurt, Ref. No. 23 U 76/08 (Jul. 29, 2009), 30 ZIP 1708 (2009); OLG Celle, Ref. No. 3 U 45/09 (Sep. 30, 2009), 30 ZIP 2091; OLG Frankfurt, Ref. No. 23 U 24/09 (Dec. 30, 2009), 31 ZIP 316 (2010); OLG Frankfurt, Ref. No. 23 U 175/08 (Dec. 30, 2009), 31 ZIP 921-925 (2010); OLG Koblenz, Ref. No. 6 U 170/09 (Jan. 14, 2010), 22 ZBB 153 (2010); OLG Stuttgart, Ref. No. 9 U 164/08 (Feb. 26 2010), 22 ZBB 162 (2010); OLG Frankfurt, Ref. No. 23 U 230/08 (Aug. 4, 2010), 31 ZIP 1637 (2010); OLG Stuttgart, Ref. No. 9 U 148/08 (Oct. 27, 2010), 31 ZIP 2189 (2010); OLG Hamm, Ref. No. 31 U 121/08 (Nov. 10, 2010), 11 Zeitschrift für Bank- und Kapitalmarktrecht (BKR) 68 (2011).Google Scholar
4 See OLG Stuttgart 9 U 164/08, supra note 3, at 210; OLG Frankfurt, 23 U 175/08, supra note 3, at margin number 72.Google Scholar
5 See Handelsblatt, , Deutsche Bank verzockt sich in Las Vegas (Deutsche Bank Gambles Away in Las Vegas)(2010), available at http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/banken/deutsche-bank-verzockt-sich-in-las-vegas/3367324.html (last accessed: 4 July 2011).Google Scholar
6 See, for community law-specific issues, Träber, Marlen, AG Report, 53 Die Aktiengesellschaft 356-358 (2008); AG Report, 55 Die Aktiengesellschaft 238-240 (2010).Google Scholar
7 See OLG Bamberg, supra note 3, at margin number 197.Google Scholar
8 See Köndgen, Johannes & Sandmann, Klaus, Strukturierte Zinsswaps vor den Berufungsgerichten: eine Zwischenbilanz (Structured Interest Swaps in courts of appeal, an Interim Result), 22 Zeitschrift für Bankrecht und Bankwirtschaft (ZBB) 77, 78 (2010), with special emphasis on “profund ignorance.”Google Scholar
9 See Clouth, Peter, Praktikerhandbuch Wertpapier- und Derivategeschäft,(Handbook of Securities and Drivates Business) at margin number 1002 (Jürgen Ellenbeger et. al. eds., 2010), about interest swaps in general.Google Scholar
10 See this article, at Section B. II. 4.Google Scholar
11 See Roberts, Julian, Finanzderivate als Glücksspiel? Aufklärungspflichten der Emittenten (Financial Derivates as a Gamble? Duties to inform for Issuers), 48 Deutsches Steuerrecht (DStR) 1082-1086, 1082 (2010).Google Scholar
12 See OLG Celle, supra note 3, at margin number 35, 36; OLG Frankfurt 23 U 230/08, supra note 3, at margin number 57; LG Wuppertal, Ref. No. 3 O 33/08 (Jul. 16, 2008), 62 Wertpapiermitteilungen - Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Bankrecht (WM) 1637, at margin numbers 85, 107 (2008); LG Ulm, Ref. No. 4 O 122/08 (Aug. 22, 2008), 29 ZIP 2009, at margin numbers 91, 101 (2008).Google Scholar
13 See OLG Stuttgart 9 U 164/08, 9 U 148/08, supra note 3.Google Scholar
14 See this article, at Section B. II. 4.Google Scholar
15 See OLG Stuttgart. 9 U 164/08, supra note 3; OLG Stuttgart 9 U 148/08, supra note 3, at margin number 55; Köndgen & Sandmann, , supra note 8, at 78.Google Scholar
16 Köndgen & Sandmann, , supra note 8, at 79.Google Scholar
17 See BGH, supra note 1, at margin number 29; OLG Bamberg, supra note 3, at margin number 111; OLG Koblenz, supra note 3, at margin number 43.Google Scholar
18 See OLG Bamberg, Reference No. 4 U 92/08, at margin numbers 24, 111 (May 11, 2009); Köndgen & Sandmann, , supra note 8, at 78; An alternate view is presented here: Reinhold Roller, Thomas Elster & Jan Christoph Knappe, Spread-abhängige (Spread Dependent) Constant Maturity (CMS) Swaps 5 ZBB 345, 347 (2007) are of the opinion that the name is based on the strike's decrease during the contract duration.Google Scholar
19 See OLG Stuttgart 9 U 164/08, supra note 3; BKR, supra note 15, at 208, 213; see also Köndgen & Sandmann, supra note 8, at 80-81, who give an example for such a scenario.Google Scholar
20 See OLG Celle, supra note 3, at margin number 41; OLG Frankfurt 23 U 230/08, supra note 3, at margin number 67.Google Scholar
21 See OLG Stuttgart Reference No. 9 U 148/08, at margin number 67 (Oct. 27, 2010).Google Scholar
22 See, erring in this assumption, OLG Celle, supra note 3, at margin number 41.Google Scholar
23 See OLG Stuttgart, 9 U 148/08, supra note 3, at margin number 67.Google Scholar
24 Id. at margin number 72.Google Scholar
25 Id. at 23.Google Scholar
26 A detailed illustration is available through Köndgen & Sandmann, supra note 8, at 80-81.Google Scholar
27 See, similarly deciding, OLG Koblenz, supra note 3, at margin number 49.Google Scholar
28 See the recent decision, BGH, Ref. No. III ZR 193/05 (Jan. 11, 2007), 60 Neue Juristische Woche (NJW) 1362, 1363 (2007).Google Scholar
29 See Thorsten Seyfried, in Bank - und Kapitalmarktrecht (Banking and Capital Market Law) at margin number 3.96 (Arne Wittig ed., 2010); Braun, , Lang & Loy, in Praktikerhandbuch Wertpapier- und Derivategeschäft (Handbook of Securities and Derivates Business) at margin number 226 (Jürgen Ellenbeger et. al. eds., 2010); Bamberger, Heinz Georg, in handbuch zum deutschen und europäischen Bankrecht (Handbook of European and German Banking Law) § 50, at margin number 29 (Peter Derleder et. al. eds., 2008).Google Scholar
30 See BGH, Ref. No. XI ZR 12/93 (Jul. 6, 1993), 46 Neue Juristische Woche (NJW) 2433 (1993).Google Scholar
31 See Frank Schäfer, in Handbuch des Kapitalanlagerechts (Handbook of Investment Law) § 21, at margin numbers 19, 27 (Heinz-Dieter Assmann et. al. eds., 2007).Google Scholar
32 See Heinz Georg Bamberger, in Handbuch zum deutschen und europäischen Bankrecht, supra note 28, § 51, at margin numbers 111-113 (; Heymann, Ekkehard von & Edelmann, Hervé, in Handbuch des kapitalanlagerechts, supra note 30, § 4, at margin numbers 19-21; Koller, Ingo, in kommentar zum WpHG § 31, at margin numbers 46-49 (Heinz-Dieter Assmann & Uwe H. Schneider eds., 2009); Hannöver, Martin, Bankrechtshandbuch Band II § 110, at margin number 31 (Herbert Schimansky et. al. eds., 3rd. Ed., 2007).Google Scholar
33 Formerly codified in § 31 (2) S. 1. No. 1 WpHG (Securities Trading Act).Google Scholar
34 See for the Kick-back Decisions: BGH, Ref. No. IX ZR 56/05 (Dec. 19, 2006), 60 NJW 1876 (2007); BGH Ref. No. XI ZR 510/07 (Jan. 20, 2009), 62 NJW 1416 (2009); BGH, Ref. No. III ZR 196/09 (Apr. 15, 2010), 31 ZIP 919-921 (2010).Google Scholar
35 See BGH, Ref. No. IX ZR 56/05 (Dec. 19, 2006), 60 NJW 1876, 1878 (2007).Google Scholar
36 See BGH, supra note 1, at margin number 17; See, for these aspects in detail: Köndgen & Sandmann, supra note 8, at 88-93; See Reinhold Roller et. al., supra note 17, at 360-362.Google Scholar
37 See BGH, supra note 1, at margin number 26.Google Scholar
38 Id. at margin number 25.Google Scholar
39 Id. at margin number 29.Google Scholar
40 Id. Google Scholar
41 Id. Google Scholar
42 See OLG Koblenz, supra note 3, at margin number 59.Google Scholar
43 See OLG Hamm, supra note 3, at margin number 87.Google Scholar
44 See OLG Frankfurt 23 U 230/08, supra note 3, at margin numbers 63-64.Google Scholar
45 See also Jan Lieder, Gesteigerte Beratungspflichten bei komplexen Anlageprodukten – Implikationen der “Zinswette”-Entscheidung des BGH (Increased Advisory Duties for complex financial instruments – Implications of the Interest Bet Decision of the BGH), 3 Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsrecht (GWR) 175 (2011).Google Scholar
46 See Klöhn, Lars, Untitled Case Note, 32 ZIP 762, 764 (2011).Google Scholar
47 See BGH, supra note 1, at margin numbers 31-38.Google Scholar
48 Id. at margin number 31.Google Scholar
49 Id. at margin number 81; see also OLG Frankfurt 23 U 175/08, supra note 3.Google Scholar
50 See BGH, supra note 1, at margin number 35.Google Scholar
51 Id. Google Scholar
52 Id. at margin number 36.Google Scholar
53 Id. Google Scholar
54 Id. at margin number 37.Google Scholar
55 Id. at margin number 38.Google Scholar
56 Id. at margin number 47.Google Scholar
57 See Mathias Habersack, Münchener Kommentar zum (Munich Commentary) BGB § 762, at margin number 7 (Kurt Rebmann et. al., eds., 2009).Google Scholar
58 See Lars Klöhn, supra note 45, at 762, who similarly asks whether the rule that an advisory contract is conclusively closed is still appropriate, if the bank is required to subordinate its own interest to the customer's.Google Scholar
59 In all cases concerning the liability for investment advisory, the jurisdiction assumes that the investor would have made the right decision if he was informed diligently.Google Scholar
60 See BGH, supra note 1, at margin number 41.Google Scholar
61 See BGH, supra note 1, at margin number 40 (with further references).Google Scholar
62 See Bamberger, Heinz Georg, supra note 28, § 50 at margin number 7.Google Scholar
63 With a similar argument, see LG Frankfurt/Main, Ref. No. 2-19 O 435/09 (Oct. 25, 2010), 11 BKR 169, 172 (2011).Google Scholar
64 LG Frankfurt/Main 2-19 O 435/09, supra note 62.Google Scholar
65 See this article, at Section E. II.Google Scholar
66 See the decisions referred to in note 33.Google Scholar
67 See BGH, supra note 1, at margin number 38; BGH Ref. No. III ZR 196/09 (Apr. 15, 2010), 31 ZIP 919-921, at margin number 12 (2010).Google Scholar
68 See BGH, supra note 34, at margin number 13.Google Scholar
69 See BGH, supra note 1, margin number 38.Google Scholar
70 Id. Google Scholar
71 See Klöhn, Lars, supra note 45, at 762, 763.Google Scholar
72 See Lieder, Jan, supra note 44; Thomas M.J. Möllers & Kernchen, Eva, Information Overload am Kapitalmarkt (Information Overload on Capital Markets), 40 Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht (ZGR) 1-26 (2011).Google Scholar
You have
Access