Cross-border Enforcement of Listed Companies' Duties to Inform
Einde inhoudsopgave
Cross-border Enforcement of Listed Companies' Duties to Inform (IVOR nr. 87) 2012/7.8:7.8 Burden of proof
Cross-border Enforcement of Listed Companies' Duties to Inform (IVOR nr. 87) 2012/7.8
7.8 Burden of proof
Documentgegevens:
mr.drs. T.M.C. Arons, datum 07-05-2012
- Datum
07-05-2012
- Auteur
mr.drs. T.M.C. Arons
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS370831:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Ondernemingsrecht (V)
Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.
With respect to the burden of proof, the different legal systems differ widely. In the following table, I will give an overview of the respective reversals of the burden of proof.
Tortiousness of behaviour
Accountability
Liability constitut- ing causation
Liability complet-ing causation
Dutch law
S. 6:193j(1) DCC
S. 6:193j(2) DCC
de facto
de facto
French law
no
no
no
no
German law
no
no
S. 45(1) SEA
S. 45(2) SEA
English law
no
no
no
no
No presumptions regarding any condition to establish liability is available to claimants who claim damages under English or French law. Under Dutch law, a double statutory presumption regarding the tortiousness of the defendant's behaviour, if the latter committed an unfür commercial practice by violation of the public law prospectus information requirements and a presumption regarding the accountability of the claimant's losses is available. Furthermore, on the basis of recent case law, there is a de facto reversal of the burden of proof in regard to the requirement of causation under Dutch law. German law provides claimants a statutory presumption of liability establishing and liability completing causation.