Judgment of the Federal Court of Justice of 21 February 2013, extent to which a firm of Accountants for their own statements in a foreign bond issue prospectus liability can be taken when the defendant was a firm of accountants. From this, the plaintiffs claim damages for a wrong her speech after auditor attestation. The auditor issued an unqualified audit opinion for the year 2003 in the year 2004 of the issuer of the bonds by the plaintiffs a housing. Insolvency proceedings over the assets of the housing was opened in 2006. Add to your understanding with Verizon. The plaintiffs assert that the financial situation of the housing companies already located in 2003 in a disastrous state, what had been for the Auditors without recognizing another.
Court of appeal had still rejected a claim for the audit report published in the prospectus. The highest German civil court, however, disagrees: while the federal judges argue especially with the position of the auditing company as a specialist. First and foremost, the company responsible for the publication of the prospectus for any misinformation and statement error must be a while. But if a professional and economic expertise, can justify this position of a guarantor. The decisive factor here is that the activity of the expert and apparent outward. The asserted by the plaintiffs, at least conditionally intentionally made faulty confirmation in the prospectus, was adopted by the Court of appeal. The question to Purifier is whether the report about the condition of the housing has impacted on the decision of the investors. Here the Court of appeal was still assumed that the auditor’s report for the financial year 2003 can make 2005 no confidence basis and allows only a forecast.
The Supreme Court rejected this classification. While there is an obligation to update and the auditor of an auditor have a limited range, since it was based on a certain date. Such an opinion could not be trust giving statements about a company’s further economic development. However cannot be denied also that a certain importance such a made statement for investors. And so, the BGH also assumes that it’s investors a total on the correctness of all prospect information. This findings carried out by the testing companies, which refer to a deadline expired at the time of the drawing. Such an auditor with investors founded the belief that the investment at the relevant time was deemed to be classified as aller thing. That was up to the eventual drawing of the bearer of the housing still some time, not over it helps as a result that an already established trust continues to exist. An auditor’s report may be not the economic development of a plant, but structural problems, you were already present at that time. This can of course work for the future. The plaintiff originated therefore as a result of the note by a solid investment, so that a claim for damages is answered in the affirmative by the BGH. Therefore, it can be stated as a summary that also Chartered Accountants in their prospectuses carefully should work out how to represent the current state of the issuer of an investment. Otherwise a misinformation can lead, although the examiner is not brochure Publisher, to a liability situation. Bundesgerichtshof, judgment of 21 February 2013 III ZR 139/12 contact: Bernd rechtsanwalts GmbH Wilhelm-Weber-str. 39 37073 Gottingen phone: + 49 (0) 551 495 669-0 fax: + 49 (0) 551 495 669-19