Do you see yourself damaged in the Wirecard case?
Different claimants have different legal concerns. Please classify yourself.
Why law firm Rotter for multi family offices, asset allocator and asset manager?
The law firm Rotter and AEQUIFIN will relieve you by supporting you commercially to enforce possible claims. You can achieve this goal in cooperation with the law firm Rotter and through professional mediation of tailor-made litigation funding solutions via the AEQUIFIN platform. In addition, AEQUIFIN offers you full commercial support as well as preparation of documents and communication with the assistance of other specialists (communication agencies, experts).
- Establishment of the law firm in 1998
- Exclusive representation of institutional investors / private capital investors and bank clients
- Long-standing international cooperation with other leading law firms in banking and capital markets law as founding partner of WIN (World Investor Lawyer Network)
- Extrajudicial and judicial advice and representation in complex banking and capital market law cases
- Many years of experience and expertise in cases with a large number of injured parties JUVE Handbuch 2015 - 2020: Highly recommended law firm for investment litigation
- The highest scientific standards are just as much a matter of course in the processing of mandates as passionate commitment and economic understanding
- Consultation and participation in legislative projects (including the 4th Financial Market Promotion Act, Spruchverfahrensgesetz, Kapitalanlegermusterverfahrensgesetz)
- Klaus Rotter regularly appears with judges of the German Federal Court of Justice as a speaker for providers of seminars on banking and capital markets law (including WM Seminare, Euroforum, Forum-Institut, RWS-Verlag)
- Scientific activity through publication of articles on banking and capital market law as well as book publications (including Ad-hoc Publicity - Handbook of the Rights and Duties of Listed Companies and Investors, C. H. Beck, Munich, Beck's Mandate Handbook - Banking Law, C. H. Beck, Munich, 2nd edition 2019)
- Klaus Rotter tritt regelmäßig mit Richtern des Bundesgerichtshofs als Referent bei Anbietern bank- und kapitalmarktrechtlicher Seminare auf (u.a. WM Seminare, Euroforum, Forum-Institut, RWS-Verlag)
- Numerous awards based on surveys of lawyers and in-house counsel:
- Brandeins magazine, May 2020: Award as one of the best commercial law firms (the only law firm on the list of the best that operates exclusively on the side of investors or bank clients)
- Handbuch Kanzleien in Deutschland, 2014: "Due to the numerous successfully conducted proceedings before the Federal Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice, the Munich law firm is now the leader in Germany in the representation of model plaintiffs in investment law".
- JUVE Handbook 2013/2014: "A law firm frequently recommended in investment law, which with its successes in the investment model proceedings before the BGH has earned a strong reputation from which it visibly benefits".
In terms of substantive law, the focus is currently on the following claimants:
EY
- Liability according to § 826 BGB as well as §§ 823 Abs. 2 BGB, 332 HGB for faulty certificates in the past years
- Pursuant to § 826 BGB, an auditor is liable for erroneous attestations or other statements made during the audit if he/she acts recklessly or unscrupulously, for example, if he/she bases an attestation on negligent investigations or statements "into the blue" (cf. most recently BGH, ruling of 12 March 2020, VII ZR 236/19)
- Munich Higher Regional Court (OLG) criticizes previously dismissive case law of Munich Regional Court I in several reference decisions (OLG Munich, decision dated December 9, 2021, 8 U 6063/21; decision dated December 13, 2021, 3 U 6014/21)
(Ex-) Board members
- Liability according to § 826 BGB for incorrect and/or omitted ad hoc announcements
- Management Board liability for deliberately false ad-hoc reports established (Infomatec, see above our landmark decisions, BGH, decision of 19 July 2004, II ZR 402/02)
- Munich Regional Court I issues so-called default judgments against Dr. Markus Braun and Jan Marsalek
Registration of claims as compensation in the insolvency proceedings
- Company's liability pursuant to Sections 97, 98 WpHG, Section 826 BGB
- Registration of the insolvency claim within the scope of the duty to mitigate damages according to § 254 BGB also required (BGH, ruling of 25.11.2014, XI ZR 169/13)
- Potentially significant proceeds from the insolvency administrator's sales transactions and successful actions for damages / for annulment of transfers against third parties provide promising opportunities to minimize a considerable portion of your losses in the insolvency proceedings
- Fees for registration and representation in insolvency proceedings covered by a litigation funding solution on the AEQUIFIN platform
- Applications are possible until the end of the limitation period on 31.12.2023
The following instruments are available for the litigation process:
- Individual actions in Germany and/or Austria (Braun, Marsalek)
- Obtaining information by inspecting criminal investigation files (§ 406e StPO)
- Model proceedings under KapMuG against EY and Dr. Markus Braun:
- The Munich I Regional Court (LG München I) issued a submission order on March 14, 2022, in which specific declaratory targets were set for bringing about a model decision (3 OH 2767/22 KapMuG
- The Bavarian Supreme Regional Court (BayObLG) will appoint a model plaintiff and publish this in the Federal Gazette (Bundesanzeiger)
- within six months of the public announcement, injured parties can file claims with the BayObLG through a lawyer and thereby suspend the statute of limitations
Why litigation funding on the AEQUIFIN platform for private investors?
The market for litigation funding is currently unclear. Negotiations with litigation funding companies are confidential and the pricing and contractual arrangements are very individual. Companies that only use litigation funding occasionally often lack the know-how for negotiations. Law firms can only compensate for this to a limited extent. They can clarify under which circumstances considerable cost risks remain with the plaintiff, in the case of lump-sum profit-sharing as currently offered on the market. However, whether the amount of the profit sharing is appropriate can hardly be assessed fairly for clients.
- Transparent market price for the profit-sharing of litigation funders
- Rapid pricing through bidding procedures for decision-making, whether self-financing or financing via third parties
- Instead of consulting with litigation funders on litigation strategy, a commercial or economic arrangement can be made (e.g. within the framework of AEQUIFIN sponsor protection)
1. Register as litigant on the platform
2. Mandating the law firm Rotter
3. Contract for law firm Rotter to tender litigation funding on the AEQUIFIN platform
4. Your lawyer will do everything else for you
Why litigation funding on the AEQUIFIN platform for institutional investors, single family offices and public funds?
More and more companies in the Anglo-Saxon world are taking advantage of offers for litigation funding, because litigation funding enables efficient outsourcing and relieves the balance sheet:
- Budgets are very difficult to plan for litigation
- Scarce in-house resources and expertise for managing litigation processes
- The integration of (additional) resources in line with requirements can also have a decisive influence on the success of the lawsuit. Even the probability of success can hardly be determined exactly. By using litigation funding, it is usually not necessary to set accruals for litigation costs that would have a negative impact on the operating result.
- If you have a litigation funder, you allow a controlling authority and benchmarking
The market for litigation funding is currently unclear. Negotiations with litigation funding companies are confidential and the pricing and contractual arrangements are very individual. Companies that only use litigation funding occasionally often lack the know-how for negotiations. Law firms can only compensate for this to a limited extent. They can clarify under which circumstances considerable cost risks remain with the plaintiff, in the case of lump-sum profit-sharing as currently offered on the market. However, whether the amount of the profit sharing is appropriate can hardly be assessed fairly for clients.
- Transparent market price for the profit-sharing of litigation funders
- Rapid pricing through bidding procedures for decision-making, whether self-financing or financing via third parties
- Comprehensible documentation of the market pricing, similar to a tender
- Processes and procedures designed to optimise creditworthiness
- Instead of consulting with litigation funders on litigation strategy, a commercial or economic arrangement can be made (e.g. within the framework of AEQUIFIN sponsor protection)
Mandating the law firm Rotter with a mandate to tender litigation funding on the AEQUIFIN platform.
- Determination of financing strategies: from confidential tender to public bidding procedure for optimal pricing
- Determination of a first offer for the profit-sharing of litigation funders
- Additional commercial project support by AEQUIFIN possible
Registration of the claimant on the AEQUIFIN platform
- Coordination of the economic and legal ideas with those responsible for the AEQUIFIN platform
- Use of special conditions of the law firm Rotter deviating from GTC
Normally the lawyer acts on the AEQUIFIN platform on behalf of the claimant. Decide whether your company wants to use the platform directly.
Why litigation funding on the AEQUIFIN platform for multi family offices, asset allocator and asset manager?
The market for litigation funding is currently unclear. Negotiations with litigation funding companies are confidential and the pricing and contractual arrangements are very individual. Companies that only use litigation funding occasionally often lack the know-how for negotiations. Law firms can only compensate for this to a limited extent. They can clarify under which circumstances considerable cost risks remain with the plaintiff, in the case of lump-sum profit-sharing as currently offered on the market. However, whether the amount of the profit sharing is appropriate can hardly be assessed fairly for clients.
- Transparent market price for the profit-sharing of litigation funders
- Rapid pricing through bidding procedures for decision-making, whether self-financing or financing via third parties
- Comprehensible documentation of the market pricing, similar to a tender
- Processes and procedures designed to optimise creditworthiness
- Highly creditworthiness-oriented litigation funding in order to minimize a possible remaining cost risk for the claimant (e.g. issuance of resilient guarantees)
- Proactive initiative for their clients before they start legal proceedings with other lawyers
- Instead of consulting with litigation funders on litigation strategy, a commercial or economic arrangement can be made (e.g. within the framework of AEQUIFIN sponsor protection)
- You can participate in the selection of the litigation funder, possibly provide your own funding in a tender and thus participate in the success of the process
Mandating the law firm Rotter with a mandate to tender litigation funding on the AEQUIFIN platform.
Obtain power of attorney from your clients to enforce claims for damages and obtain litigation funding
- Power of attorney to conclude litigation funding agreements via the AEQUIFIN platform
- Authorisation to prepare a mandate agreement with the law firm Rotter
Register as an authorised representative on the platform
Mandating the law firm Rotter by your client or by means of a power of attorney
- Contract to tender litigation funding on the AEQUIFIN platform
- Additional commercial project support by AEQUIFIN possible
Agree on the litigation funding as authorised representative
- Use of special conditions of the law firm Rotter deviating from GTC
- Definition of a funding strategy and a first offer for the profit-sharing of litigation funders with the law firm Rotter and AEQUIFIN
- Combining clients into funding packages: Benefits of cost degression, yet individual representation in court
Responsibility for ongoing communication
- Inform clients through or via the AEQUIFIN platform
- Additional commercial and communicative project support by AEQUIFIN possible
