The action for damages against six cement manufacturers brought by Belgian company Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) – which specialises in class actions – also failed on appeal. The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court confirmed a lower court decision from December 2013, dismissing the appeal. CDC had brought claims from parties injured by the cement cartel uncovered in 2004, and demanded payment of an amount running into the hundreds of millions.
The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court’s decision has significant implications for other proceedings instituted by CDC in Germany and other EU Member States. Gleiss Lutz has been representing the market leader HeidelbergCement in the lawsuit, which has been running for nine years.
Both instances agreed with the key arguments put forward by HeidelbergCement and Gleiss Lutz and concluded that the original assignments of the claims infringed the German Legal Advice Act and were therefore null and void. The Court also found that the claims for damages had become statute-barred and that the model implemented by CDC in the specific case was unethical. It pointed out that the plaintiff acquired claims and asserted these in court in return for a conditional fee, without having to draw on its own funds to do so. The cement customers therefore did not bear any litigation-related risk themselves and the plaintiff at most a very small risk, since it had no assets worth mentioning and, if it lost the case, could not pay the full amount of the litigation costs to be borne by it, especially the costs to be reimbursed to the defendants. This meant that the risk of incurring legal costs was shifted to the defendants.
The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court denied leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Justice on points of law. CDC can, however, appeal against such denial.
HeidelbergCement was represented by Dr. Ulrich Denzel (partner), Dr. Carsten Klöppner, Dr. Miriam Schmidt and Susann Markert (all competition/antitrust, Stuttgart).
Gleiss Lutz has been involved in the development of actions for damages under antitrust law from the outset and is one of the leading firms in what is a relatively new area of law in Europe. It has advised, among others:
voestalpine on actions for damages in connection with the rail cartel.
IVECO Magirus on a collective settlement with local authorities in connection with claims arising from the tank pumper cartel – first collective settlement in Germany
ProSiebenSat.1 on actions for damages brought by RTL 2, MTV and TM-TV in connection with the sale of advertising space
Evonik Degussa in the largest CDC action for damages to date (concerning hydrogen peroxide) before the Dortmund District Court and the European Court of Justice
Papierfabrik August Koehler before the Federal Court of Justice in proceedings concerning carbonless paper (ORWI) – first case relating to damages on account of antitrust infringements before the Federal Court of Justice and landmark decision on claims brought by indirectly injured parties
Salt manufacturer in connection with claims arising from the road salt cartel – settlements with the Federal Government and Federal States as well as local authorities
voestalpine bei Schadensersatzklagen in Zusammenhang mit dem Schienenkartell
IVECO Magirus bei Sammelvergleich mit Kommunen in Zusammenhang mit Forderungen aus dem Löschfahrzeugkartell – erster Kollektivvergleich in Deutschland
ProSiebenSat.1 bei Schadensersatzklagen von RTL 2, MTV und TM-TV im Zusammenhang mit der Vermarktung von Werbung
Evonik Degussa im bislang größten CDC-Schadensersatzverfahren (Wasserstoffperoxid) vor dem Landgericht Dortmund und dem Europäischen Gerichtshof
Papierfabrik August Koehler vor dem Bundesgerichtshof im Verfahren um Selbstdurchschreibepapier (ORWI) – erster Fall zu Schadenersatz wegen Kartellverstößen vor dem BGH und Grundsatzentscheidung zu Klagen mittelbar Geschädigter
Salzhersteller in Zusammenhang mit Forderungen aus dem Streusalzkartell – Vergleiche mit Bund und Ländern sowie Kommunen
Forward
