在定位财务损失的难题中出现了一块新的拼图:VEB诉英国石油公司(BP)一案关于基于投资者信息不足的集体行动管辖权的裁决

Matthias B. Lehmann
{"title":"在定位财务损失的难题中出现了一块新的拼图:VEB诉英国石油公司(BP)一案关于基于投资者信息不足的集体行动管辖权的裁决","authors":"Matthias B. Lehmann","doi":"10.1080/17441048.2022.2060347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For the first time, the CJEU has ruled in VEB v BP on the court competent for deciding liability suits regarding misinformation on the secondary securities market. Surprisingly, the Court localises the damage resulting from misinformation on the secondary financial markets at a single place, that where the financial instruments in question were listed. This raises the question of how the decision can be squared with earlier cases like Kolassa or Löber and other precedent. It is also unclear how the new ruling applies to special cases like dual listings or electronic trading venues. Furthermore, the judgment is of utmost importance for the jurisdiction over collective actions by postulating that they should not be treated any differently than individual actions, without clarifying what this means in practice. This contribution analyses these questions, puts the judgment in larger context, and discusses its repercussions for future cases.","PeriodicalId":44028,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Private International Law","volume":"18 1","pages":"1 - 27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A new piece in the puzzle of locating financial loss: the ruling in VEB v BP on jurisdiction for collective actions based on deficient investor information\",\"authors\":\"Matthias B. Lehmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17441048.2022.2060347\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For the first time, the CJEU has ruled in VEB v BP on the court competent for deciding liability suits regarding misinformation on the secondary securities market. Surprisingly, the Court localises the damage resulting from misinformation on the secondary financial markets at a single place, that where the financial instruments in question were listed. This raises the question of how the decision can be squared with earlier cases like Kolassa or Löber and other precedent. It is also unclear how the new ruling applies to special cases like dual listings or electronic trading venues. Furthermore, the judgment is of utmost importance for the jurisdiction over collective actions by postulating that they should not be treated any differently than individual actions, without clarifying what this means in practice. This contribution analyses these questions, puts the judgment in larger context, and discusses its repercussions for future cases.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Private International Law\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Private International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2022.2060347\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Private International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2022.2060347","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

欧盟法院首次在VEB诉英国石油公司一案中裁定,法院有权就二级证券市场上的错误信息提起责任诉讼。令人惊讶的是,法院将二级金融市场上的错误信息造成的损害定位在一个地方,即相关金融工具的上市地。这就提出了一个问题,即如何将该决定与之前的案件(如Kolassa或Löber)和其他先例相一致。目前还不清楚新裁决如何适用于双重上市或电子交易场所等特殊情况。此外,该判决对集体诉讼的管辖权至关重要,因为它假定不应将集体诉讼与个人诉讼区别对待,但没有澄清这在实践中意味着什么。本文分析了这些问题,将判决放在更大的背景下,并讨论了其对未来案件的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A new piece in the puzzle of locating financial loss: the ruling in VEB v BP on jurisdiction for collective actions based on deficient investor information
For the first time, the CJEU has ruled in VEB v BP on the court competent for deciding liability suits regarding misinformation on the secondary securities market. Surprisingly, the Court localises the damage resulting from misinformation on the secondary financial markets at a single place, that where the financial instruments in question were listed. This raises the question of how the decision can be squared with earlier cases like Kolassa or Löber and other precedent. It is also unclear how the new ruling applies to special cases like dual listings or electronic trading venues. Furthermore, the judgment is of utmost importance for the jurisdiction over collective actions by postulating that they should not be treated any differently than individual actions, without clarifying what this means in practice. This contribution analyses these questions, puts the judgment in larger context, and discusses its repercussions for future cases.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
25.00%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
The common law marriage in Australian private international law Sustainability and jurisdiction in the international civil litigation market The EU private international law framework for civil disputes concerning credit ratings: Exploring the status quo and prospects of reform The Brussels IIb Regulation – Most significant changes compared to its predecessor and enhancement of the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction When migration meets private international law: issues of private international law in divorce actions of Syrian migrants under temporary protection before the Turkish courts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1