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.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call