No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Risk of Reverse Convertible Bonds: German Capital Market Law and Investor Protection
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Extract
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 times of a continuously expanding proliferation of investment and financing possibilities in the hands of banks, investment funds and individual capital investors, particular attention should be paid to the effects that new financial instruments are likely to have not only on concrete financing and investing modes but also on the further development of legal rules in this field. As the German capital market has been considered unable - at least until the widely marketed Deutsche Telekom IPO - to get rid of its persisting prejudice of being structurally lagging behind other countries’ systems, the legal treatment of emerging financial instruments deserves greatest attention. The rocket science of new financial instruments challenges law's aim to rightly assess the real quality of these instruments and to strike an adequate balance between the interests involved against a national policy background and EU demands. While the past few years have been a time of great legislative activity in the field of company and capital market law in Germany, only a closer look at court decisions reveals the true pressure resulting from a fast moving capital market on traditional legal perceptions. The so-called Aktienanleihe-Decision by the Federal Court of Justice, [FCJ] (Bundesgerichtshof - BGH) of 12 March 2002 marks an important step in the ongoing process of Germany's developing capital market law.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2002 by German Law Journal GbR
References
(1) Comments on the Aktienanleihe-Decision by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of 12 March 2002, published in: BB 2002, p. 850.Google Scholar
(2) See e.g. Lenenbach, Kapitalmarkt- und Börsenrecht (2002), preface; Mülbert, Empfiehlt es sich, im Interesse des Anlegerschutzes und zur Förderung des Finanzplatzes Deutschland das Kapitalmarkt- und Börsenrecht neu zu regeln?, JZ 2002, p. 826; cf. the expert opinions on this topic prepared by Hanno Merkt and Holger Fleischer for the 64th Session of the German Jurists Convention in Berlin (2002).Google Scholar
(3) See, recently, the comprehensive treatment by Reiner, Derivative Finanzinstrumente im Recht (2002).Google Scholar
(4) See Lenenbach, supra note 2, p. 481; for a concise treatment of new financial instruments see Reiner, supra note 3; Raeschke/Kessler, Bankenhaftung bei Anlageberatung über neue Finanzprodukte, WM 1993, p. 1830.Google Scholar
(5) Gesetz über den Wertpapierhandel (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz - WpHG) in its version of 9 September 1998 (Official Bulletin (BGBl.) I p. 2708), last amended by Art. 4 of the law of 23 July 2002 (Official Bulletin (BGBl.) I p. 2778): http://www.bafin.de/gesetze/wphg.htm; Gesetz zur Kontrolle und Transparenz im Unternehmensbereich (KonTraG) of 27 April 1998 (Official Bulletin (BGBl.) I p. 786): http://www.ecgi.org/codes/country_documents/germany/gkontrag.pdf; German Corporate Governance Code in its version of 7 November 2002: http://www.ebundesanzeiger.de/download/kodex2.pdf; Gesetz über Kapitalanlagegesellschaften (KAGG) of 16 April 1957 (Official Bulletin (BGBl.) I p. 378), last amended by Art. 3 of the law of 21 June 2002 (Official Bulletin (BGBl.) I p. 2010): http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bundesrecht/kagg/htmltree.html; Gesetz zur weiteren Reform des Aktien- und Bilanzrechts, zu Transparenz und Publizität (Transparenz- und Publizitätsgesetz - TraPuG) of 19 July 2002 (Official Bulletin (BGBl.) I p. 2681): http://217.160.60.235/BGBL/bgbl1f/bgbl102s2681.pdf; Gesetz zur weiteren Fortentwicklung des Finanzplatzes Deutschland (Viertes Finanzmarktförderungsgesetz) of 21 June 2002 (Official Bulletin (BGBl.) I p. 2010): http://www.boersenaufsicht.de/4_fmfg.pdf; see hereto the comprehensive treatment by Lenenbach, supra note 2; Zumbansen, The Privatization of Corporate Law? Corporate Governance Codes and Commercial Self-regulation, Juridikum 3 (2002), pp. 32–40, also in: 1 ANNUAL OF GERMAN & EUROPEAN LAW 2003 (Russell Miller/Peer Zumbansen eds.), Berghahn Books (Oxford/New York), forthcoming 2003.Google Scholar
(6) See Federal Court of Justice, Decision of 12 March 2002, supra note 1.Google Scholar
(7) Regional Court (Landgericht – LG) Frankfurt, WM 2000, p. 1293.Google Scholar
(8) Regional Appeals Court (Kammergericht – KG) Berlin, ZIP 2001, p. 1194.Google Scholar
(9) FCJ BB 2002, p. 850 (Leitsätze 1 und 2).Google Scholar
(10) See Kilgus, Anleihen mit Tilgungswahlrecht des Emittenten (Reverse Convertibles), WM 2001, p. 1325; Köndgen, Comment on the Decision by the Regional Appeals Court Berlin, supra note 8, ZIP 2001, p. 1197.Google Scholar
(11) Brealey/Myers, Principles of Corporate Finance (2000), 6th ed., p. 153.Google Scholar
(12) Ibid.Google Scholar
(13) ’Anlagengerechte Beratung and objektgerechte Beratung‘ as guiding principles in investment advice, see FCJ 123, p. 126.Google Scholar
(14) See infra.Google Scholar
(15) See supra note 5.Google Scholar
(16) Ibid.Google Scholar
(17) Börsengesetz (BörsG) in its version of 21 June 2002 (Official Bulletin (BGBl.) I p. 2010).Google Scholar
(18) See definition in Sec. 2 Sub. 4 STA.Google Scholar
(19) Sec. B.2.2. of the Directive of 23 August 2001 under Sec. 31, 32 Securities Trading Act (Richtlinie gemäß § 35 Abs. 6 des Gesetzes über den Wertpapierhandel (WpHG) zur Konkretisierung der §§ 31 und 32 WpHG für das Kommissionsgeschäft, den Eigenhandel für andere und das Vermittlungsgeschäft der Wertpapierdienstleistungsunternehmen of 23 August 2001 (”Wohlverhaltensrichtlinie“), Federal Gazette (Bundesanzeiger) No. 165 of 4 September 2001, p. 19 217).Google Scholar
(20) Ibid.Google Scholar
(21) FCJ WM 1998, p. 1391; Kienle in Schimansky/Bunte/Lwowski, Bankrechtshandbuch Vol. III (2001), § 110 Para. 19; Kümpel, WM 1995, Die allgemeinen Verhaltesregeln des Wertpapierhandelsgesetzes, p. 689.Google Scholar
(22) See - the recently adopted - definition in Sec. 13 of the German Civil Law Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch).Google Scholar
(23) See definition in Sec. 2 Sub. 2a STA.Google Scholar
(24) Comprehensive illustration Reiner, supra note 3, p. 86 et seq.Google Scholar
(25) FCJ 133, p. 86 with a comment by Allmendinger, EwiR 1996, p. 699.Google Scholar
(26) FCJ WM 1998, p. 1391; this ruling came about still under the old Sec. 53 Sub. 2 SEA. The duties of adequate information regarding futures transactions are now regulated by the Securities Trading Act. The term Börsentermingeschäfte (formerly Sec. 53 SEA) has been replaced with the term Finanztermingeschäfte by the Fourth Financial Markets Promotion Act (now Sec. 2 Sub. 2a and Sec. 37 d et seq. STA).Google Scholar
(27) Cf. Ellenberger, Die neuere Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofes zum Börsenterminhandel, WM 1999, Supplement No. 2, p. 5; Nieding, 4. Finanzmarktförderungsgesetz (3) – Kein großer Wurf für den Anlegerschutz, Börsen-Zeitung, 17.10.2001, http://www.boersenzeitung.de/online/redaktion/fimafoeg/BZ200066.HTM.Google Scholar
(28) Braun, Pflicht der Bank zur schriftlichen Risikoaufklärung bei Erwerb von Aktienanleihen, BKR 2001, p. 53; Köndgen, supra note 10, p. 1198; Lenenbach, Aktienanleihen - Ihre Behandlung im Zivil- und Börsenterminrecht und nach dem AGBG, NZG 2001, p. 483, 489; Luttermann, Aktienverkaufsoptionsanleihen (“reverse convertible notes”), standardisierte Information und Kapitalmarktdemokratie, ZIP 2001, p. 1901, 1903.Google Scholar
(29) Higher Regional Court (LG)Frankfurt, WM 2000, p. 1293; Higher Regional Court (LG) Wuppertal BKR 2002, p. 190; Assmann, Irrungen und Wirrungen im Recht der Termingeschäfte, ZIP 2001, p. 2078; Clouth, Pflicht der Bank zur schriftlichen Risikoaufklärung bei Erwerb von Aktienanleihen, BKR 2001, p. 47; Dötsch/Kellner, Aufklärungs- und Beratungspflichten der Kreditinstitute beim Vertrieb von Aktienanleihen, WM 2001, p. 1998; Kilgus, supra note 10; Müller, Aktienanleihen: Einordnung als Termingeschäft und Erfordernis schriftlicher Aufklärung?, ZBB 2001, p. 371; Rümker, Anleihen mit Tilgungswahlrechten des Emittenten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Tilgung durch Lieferung von Aktien, in Beisse/Lutter/Närger (eds.), Festschrift für Karl Beusch (1993), p. 743; Zietsch, Keine Pflicht zur schriftlichen Information bei Aktienanleihen, NJW 2002, p. 1925.Google Scholar
(30) Cf. Reiner, supra note 3, 90; Müller, supra note 29, p. 363.Google Scholar
(31) FCJ 92, p. 317; 114, p. 177; BB 2002, 283 and 850.Google Scholar
(32) FCJ BB 2002, p. 850; see also Clouth, supra note 29, p. 45; Dötsch/Kellner, supra note 29, p. 1996.Google Scholar
(33) Dötsch/Kellner, supra note 29, p. 1997.Google Scholar
(34) Cf. Reiner, supra note 3, p. 38 et seq.; Zietsch, supra note 29, p. 1926.Google Scholar
(35) See also FCJ WM 1988, p. 323; Regional Appeals Court (KG) Berlin BKR 2002, p. 399.Google Scholar
(36) Müller, supra note 29, p. 368; but see Braun, supra note 28, p. 50; Lenenbach, supra note 28, p. 484.Google Scholar
(37) FCJ BB 2002, p. 851.Google Scholar
(38) Mostly within two days, see FCJ 103, p. 84; Rümker, supra note 29, p. 743.Google Scholar
(39) Ibid.; Dötsch/Kellner, supra note 29, p. 1997; Zietsch, supra note 29, p. 1927.Google Scholar
(40) Dötsch/Kellner, supra note 29, p. 1996.Google Scholar
(41) FCJ BB 2002, p. 851; see also Assmann, supra note 29, p. 2071.Google Scholar
(42) FCJ BB 2002, p. 851; Zietsch, supra note 29, p. 1927; Reiner is stating that this “deadline pressure” (Termindruck) isn't a characteristic feature determining whether or not a financial instrument is a future (or more generally speaking a derivative), supra note 3, p. 43 et seq.Google Scholar
(43) Assmann, supra note 29, p. 2078.Google Scholar
(44) FCJ BB 2002, 851; 114, p. 117.Google Scholar
(45) Reiner, , supra note 3, p. 5.Google Scholar
(46) See also Köndgen, supra note 10, p. 1198.Google Scholar
(47) Regional Appeals Court (KG) Berlin BKR 2002, p. 402.Google Scholar
(48) Ibid.Google Scholar
(49) There will, of course, be procedural difficulties for the investor to prove that the information duties have been violated by the enterprise. It will regularly name the respective employee who will tell the court, as a witness, that all the required information has been given or simply told, which is sufficient, to the investor.Google Scholar
(50) Banken sehen Klagen gegen Aktienanleihen gelassen entgegen, F.A.Z., 16.6.2001, p. 26.Google Scholar
(51) Cf. Luttermann, Comment on FCJ BB 2002, p. 850, JZ 2002, p. 781, who suggests the introduction of a « Risk Passport » which, in a standardized way, contains information about the specific risks of the investments.Google Scholar
(52) Cf. Assmann, Prospekthaftung, in Assmann/Schütze (eds.), Handbuch des Kapitalanlagerechts (2001, suppl. vol.), 2nd ed., § 7; Grundmann in Schimansky/Bunte/Lwowski, supra note 21, § 112 Para. 31 et seq.; Hüffer, Das Wertpapier-Verkaufsprospektgesetz – Prospektpflicht und Anlegerschutz (1996), § 7 et seq.; Assmann, Prospekthaftung als Haftung für die Verletzung kapitalmarktbezogener Informationsverkehrspflichten nach deutschem und US-amerikanischem Recht (1985).Google Scholar
(53) See, hereto, the brillant essay by Kübler, Wirtschaftsrecht in der Bundesrepublik. Versuch einer wissenschaftshistorischen Bestandsaufnahme, in Simon (ed.), Rechtswissenschaft in der Bonner Republik (1994), p. 364.Google Scholar
You have
Access