In July 2020, the Diesel Emissions Justice Foundation (DEJF), which represents car users, summoned Daimler A.G. et al., manufacturer of, inter alia, Mercedes-Benz cars, in response to the diesel engine emissions scandal. At the request of the Car Claim Foundation, the Amsterdam District Court decided in a cause-list decision of 30 September 2020 to extend the (three-month) period for other parties to also issue a summons by two months (pursuant to Article 1018d of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure). ^[1] Cause-list decision of 30 September 2020 (Daimler, in Dutch)  Despite the District Court’s initial impression that the case was complex from both a factual and legal perspective, it did not grant the possible three-month extension because Car Claim was already aware of DEJF’s case. The District Court held that this cause-list decision must be added to the central register for class actions, despite the fact that the WAMCA does not prescribe this. Car Claim itself had explicitly asked that its request for extension also apply to other representative entities, but the District Court did not decide on that request because it did not see what interest Car Claim had therein. The register now shows that writs of summons have also been issued by Car Claim and the Emission Claim Foundation. This likely means that the District Court will still have to decide whether Emissions Claim could also benefit from the extension request submitted by Car Claim.

The aim of the BREIN foundation is to combat copyright infringements, in particular for its affiliated rightsholders. On 1 July 2020, a district court in the Netherlands ruled in preliminary relief proceedings initiated by BREIN, seeking that the defendant be ordered to stop offering hyperlinks or other technical references that allow users access to illegal content. ^[1]Midden-Nederland District Court 1 July 2020, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2020:2780 The defendant disputed BREIN’s right of action, arguing that the requirements of Article 1018c(1) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure had not been met.

Firstly, the defendant disputed that BREIN had sufficiently described the parties whose interests it is representing. The Preliminary Relief Judge held that in order to comply with Article 1018c(1)(b) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure it was not necessary to list specific names in the summons. The fact that the foundation referred in its summons to its website for the names of its affiliates was sufficient. In so doing, BREIN had provided sufficient description of the persons for whom the class action was instituted.

In addition, the defendant disputed that BREIN had sufficiently substantiated the assertion in the summons that repeated infringing acts had taken place. This defence was also rejected by the Preliminary Relief Judge as the summons contained a specific claim and factual assertions on which that claim was based.

Finally, the defendant argued that BREIN had no locus standi because its summons did not state what had been done to reach a settlement in mutual consultation. According to the defendant, the requirement of Article 3:305a(3) of the Dutch Civil Code had not been met. This defence was also rejected. The defendant had stated itself that BREIN made him a settlement proposal, but that no consensus had been reached on this point. In addition, the Preliminary Relief Judge held that the requirement of Article 3:305a(3) of the Dutch Civil Code did not go as far as requiring BREIN to enter into consultation with the defendant even if that consultation could not reasonably help resolve the dispute. The Preliminary Relief Judge declared BREIN to have a right of action.

Wirecard was a listed German company that facilitated online payments. In June 2020, Wirecard’s board announced that € 1.9 billion in reported cash was missing or had possibly never existed. Following this announcement, an increasing number of (suspected) accounting irregularities emerged, and the share price collapsed. Meanwhile, Wirecard was declared bankrupt, and various proceedings were initiated by aggrieved investors against, among other parties, Wirecard’s accountant, Ernst & Young. For example, a class action is ongoing in the United States before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Wirecard, Ernst & Young, a number of members of Wirecard’s management board and a member of its supervisory board. In Germany, five class actions have been initiated before various District Courts against Wirecard, Ernst & Young and two German regulators, namely the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht and the Deutsche Prüfstelle für Rechnungslegung. With parliamentary and criminal investigations also under way in Germany, this has been called the largest accounting scandal since the Enron affair.