zeit.de
Wirecard Lawsuit: Court Rejects Claims Against EY
The Bavarian Supreme Regional Court dismissed almost 8,700 investor claims against EY in a Wirecard class-action lawsuit, ruling that EY did not directly publish the false information; however, the plaintiff plans to appeal to the Federal Court of Justice.
- What are the potential long-term implications of this ruling on future cases involving auditor liability and false financial reporting?
- This ruling may influence future accounting and auditing liability cases. The court's emphasis on the publisher of false information sets a precedent. Investors may now need to demonstrate that EY's audit failures directly caused the market's false information, rather than merely enabling it. The plaintiff's appeal to the Federal Court of Justice will likely further shape legal interpretations.
- What are the immediate consequences of the Bavarian Supreme Regional Court's decision regarding the claims against EY in the Wirecard investor lawsuit?
- The Bavarian Supreme Regional Court rejected claims against EY in a Wirecard investor lawsuit. Almost 8,700 investors sought damages, claiming EY approved false Wirecard balance sheets. The court ruled that EY didn't directly publish the false information, thus rejecting the claims in this specific case.
- How did the court's distinction between EY's role in approving the balance sheets and Wirecard's role in publishing them influence the ruling on the claims?
- The court's decision hinges on who published the false information. While investors accuse EY of approving false balance sheets, the court argues that Wirecard, not EY, published them. This distinction affects the legal basis for claims within this particular class-action lawsuit.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the legal complexities and the court's decision, potentially downplaying the scale of the financial losses suffered by the investors. The headline, if any, would heavily influence this perception. The use of quotes from the lawyer, expressing strong disagreement, is presented without counterbalancing opinions.
Language Bias
The language is largely neutral, using terms like "gedämpft" (dampened) which is factual, and quotes from the lawyer like "hundertprozentig falsch" (completely wrong). While these accurately reflect statements made, selecting different quotes might offer a more nuanced tone.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the legal aspects and the perspectives of the court and lawyers involved. It mentions the disappointment of thousands of former Wirecard shareholders but does not delve into the individual stories or financial hardships faced by these investors. The human cost of the Wirecard scandal is largely omitted.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified dichotomy between claims based on false market information versus claims based on breach of auditing duties. It might not fully represent the complex interplay between these two types of claims and the potential for overlap.
Gender Bias
The article mentions the Gerichtspräsidentin Andrea Schmidt by name and title, giving her perspective. While not explicitly biased, a more balanced approach might include perspectives from female shareholders or experts.
Sustainable Development Goals
The lawsuit seeks to address potential financial losses suffered by investors, aiming for a more equitable distribution of wealth and compensation for those harmed by corporate misconduct. The ruling, while initially unfavorable to investors, allows for continued legal action focused on individual claims against EY and others, contributing to a process of accountability and potential redress for affected parties. This aligns with SDG 10 which aims to reduce inequality within and among countries.