法律研究

Dying: Not a reason to enforce security

The Supreme Court for Civil Matters ruled in a recent case, that the death of a borrower doesn’t automatically entail a right of the bank to enforce security. As a general rule, the loan agreement is still valid after the death of the borrower. Good cause to terminate the loan agreement only exists if the repayment of the loan is jeopardized due to deterioration of the financial situation of the borrower. (9Ob35/16m)

2016年7月13日

Incomplete is also wrong

Market manipulation can be committed in many different ways, one of them being disseminating information which gives false or misleading signals. In a recent decision the Supreme Administrative Court (VwGH) ruled that such market manipulation can also be committed by disseminating incomplete information. Also it does not matter how likely it is that such market manipulation will have a “significant effect” – the latter is a requirement solely for insider information but not for market manipulation. (2015/02/0200)

2016年6月12日

If it’s written in the prospectus, it must be true?

The Brussels I Regulation requires anagreement on a jurisdiction clause; a clause contained in a prospectus for bonds fulfills the agreement-requirement only if the contract signed by the parties upon the issue of the bonds on the primary market expressly mentions the acceptance or contains an express reference to the prospectus. But what about a third party acquiring the bonds? Such third party is only bound by the jurisdiction clause if he succeeded to the rights and obligations attached to the bonds and had the opportunity to acquaint himself with the prospectus. And if not? The insertion of a jurisdiction clause into a prospectus may still be regarded as usage in international trade or commerce for purposes of the Brussels I Regulation provided that such conduct is generally and regularly followed by the operators in the concerned sector and either the parties had previously commercial or trade relations in the sector or the conduct is sufficiently well known. (C‑366/13)

2016年5月8日

“Any” means “any”

Austrian investment fund law aims at controlling personal transactions of certain managers and employees. To this end it is required that the management company be informed of any personal transaction of a relevant person; certain personal transactions of relevant persons be prevented altogether. In a recent decision the Supreme Administrative Court (VwGH) ruled that “any personal transaction” really means any; the transaction does not need to fulfill any additional requirement in order to trigger the information obligation. (2016/02/0004)

2016年5月5日

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder

As prescribed by MiFID, under Austrian law all information by investment firms to clients must be fair, clear and not misleading. But what’s fair? The Supreme Administrative Court (VwGH) recently found that the use of technical terms of the capital market may be not fair; the addressees of a certain offer by a bank had included retail clients and the offer had used the term “Qualified Investor”. If the technical term is relevant for the understanding of the information, it must be explained, ruled the court. (2014/02/0089)

2016年4月23日