Prospectus Liability and Causation

Arnoud Pijls
{"title":"Prospectus Liability and Causation","authors":"Arnoud Pijls","doi":"10.1515/jetl-2023-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract When establishing causation for claims involving prospectus liability, it is the factual basis of the claim and the corresponding line of argumentation that determines the perspective that should be taken as a starting point. There are basically two factual bases that can be distinguished. For the first factual basis of causation, the reliance of the investor on the prospectus is irrelevant. For the second factual basis, reliance is, however, relevant. In its World Online decision, the Dutch Supreme Court adopted a presumption of reliance for both factual bases of causation. This presumption of reliance is based on art 11(2) of the Prospectus Regulation. In my opinion, this provision does not provide a convincing basis for the adoption of such a presumption. Article 11a(1) of the Unfair Commercial Practices (UCP) Directive provides a much more convincing basis.","PeriodicalId":225160,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Tort Law","volume":"16 4B 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of European Tort Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jetl-2023-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract When establishing causation for claims involving prospectus liability, it is the factual basis of the claim and the corresponding line of argumentation that determines the perspective that should be taken as a starting point. There are basically two factual bases that can be distinguished. For the first factual basis of causation, the reliance of the investor on the prospectus is irrelevant. For the second factual basis, reliance is, however, relevant. In its World Online decision, the Dutch Supreme Court adopted a presumption of reliance for both factual bases of causation. This presumption of reliance is based on art 11(2) of the Prospectus Regulation. In my opinion, this provision does not provide a convincing basis for the adoption of such a presumption. Article 11a(1) of the Unfair Commercial Practices (UCP) Directive provides a much more convincing basis.
招股章程责任和因果关系
在招股书责任索赔的因果关系认定中,索赔的事实依据和相应的论证思路决定了应当采取何种视角作为起点。基本上有两个可以区分的事实基础。对于因果关系的第一个事实基础,投资者对招股说明书的依赖是无关的。然而,对于第二个事实基础,依赖是相关的。在World Online的判决中,荷兰最高法院对因果关系的两个事实基础采用了依赖推定。这种信赖推定是基于《招股章程规例》第11(2)条。我认为,这项规定没有为采用这种推定提供令人信服的依据。不公平商业惯例(UCP)指令第11a(1)条提供了更有说服力的依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信