Should PSE have informed the shareholders about the extent of the diesel emissions affair at VW at an earlier point in time? A court should clarify this question.
Leinfelden-Echterdingen (dpa) – In a legal dispute against the VW holding company Porsche SE (PSE) in connection with the diesel scandal, the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court does not expect a quick end.
Senate chairman Stefan Vatter said on Tuesday that the Federal Court of Justice would set the course in the model case. One will look more eagerly to Karlsruhe than to Stuttgart. The core of the negotiations in Leinfelden-Echterdingen is whether the holding company should have informed its shareholders about the extent of the diesel emissions scandal at VW at an earlier point in time.
Vatter said that a constellation like the one being negotiated had never existed before. Above all, it will have to be clarified whether and under what circumstances PSE, as the VW umbrella company, was independently obliged to publish mandatory stock market notifications about price-relevant transactions at VW. Although PSE is the main shareholder of VW, it does not have any operating business itself. The Porsche SE lawyer argued that there is a duty to publish where the event takes place. In contrast, the plaintiff’s lawyers stated that investors were interested in the effects of the diesel scandal on the holding company.
The plaintiffs argue that – in ignorance of the diesel scams – they paid too much money for their PSE shares years ago. Their argumentation: If VW and then the holding company had informed the markets about the scandal earlier, it would have depressed the share price earlier and they would have had to pay less for their shares. The PSE considers the complaints to be “obviously unfounded”. It is a holding company and not a car manufacturer, which is why it was not involved in the development, manufacture or sale of suspicious diesel engines.
The OLG had declared a British fund to be the model plaintiff, which is making a claim of 5.7 million euros. The OLG does not negotiate the amount of individual claims here – it is about the question of whether the plaintiffs are in principle entitled to compensation.