The Securities Litigation Review
20/07/2015

I OVERVIEW

i Sources of law

The sources of Belgian securities law are relatively widespread. These sources include several federal acts and royal decrees, as well as specific regulations and guidelines issued by the Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA). The main sources of law in this area are the following:

a The Act of 2 August 2002 on the supervision of the financial sector and on financial services (the Act of 2 August 2002). This Act sets out key principles in respect of (1) the regulation of the financial sector and the provision of financial services in Belgium; and (2) the structure and powers entrusted with the FSMA. The Act provides for (criminal) sanctions, inter alia, in respect of market abuse.

b The Act of 16 June 2006 on public offers of securities and the admission to trading of securities on regulated markets (the Prospectus Act). This Act implements the EU Directive 2003/71/EC (the Prospectus Directive, as amended by the EU Directive 2010/73/EU) into Belgian law. The Prospectus Act regulates the drawing up, approval and distribution of the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market situated or operating in Belgium. The Act determines the scope of the FSMA’s powers in respect of such public offerings or admissions to trading.

c The Act of 1 April 2007 on public takeover bids (the Public Takeover Bids Act), and the Royal Decrees of 27 April 2007. The Public Takeover Bids Act and the Royal Decrees of 27 April 2007 implement the EU Directive 2004/25/EC on takeover bids into Belgian law. They establish the legal regime applicable in Belgium to voluntary public takeover bids, mandatory public takeover bids and public squeeze-out bids.

d The Act of 2 May 2007 on the disclosure of significant holdings in issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market (the Transparency Act) and its implementing decree of 14 February 2008. The Transparency Act implements into Belgian law the EU Directive 2004/109/EC on the harmonization of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market. The Transparency Act imposes, inter alia, specific notification obligations on shareholders, in the event of the acquisition or disposal of major holdings or proportions of voting rights in listed companies (when such holdings or proportions of voting rights exceed certain thresholds set out in the Act).

e Regulations and guidelines issued by the FSMA. The FSMA imposes certain obligations on issuers of securities, but also on credit institutions, investment firms, intermediaries and investment advisers. The FSMA also publishes guidelines2 and communications, setting out good practices to be followed by Belgian market players.

Additionally, the following statutory sources may have an indirect impact on the Belgian securities markets, but fall outside of the scope of this Chapter:

a the Belgian Companies Code of 7 May 1999, as amended from time to time;

b the Act of 11 January 1993 on preventing the use of the financial system for purposes of money laundering and financing of terrorism;

c the Act of 25 April 2014 on the status and supervision of credit institutions; and

d the Act of 6 April 1995 on the status and supervision of investment firms, intermediaries and investment advisers.

ii Enforcement authorities

The main authorities in charge of the enforcement of securities law in Belgium are the FSMA, the Brussels Court of Appeal and the courts of first instance (civil and criminal sections).3

Regulatory authority – the FSMA

The main regulatory actor on the Belgian securities market is the FSMA, formerly known as the Banking, Finance and Insurance Commission (CBFA). The FSMA is an autonomous public institution.

The FSMA and the National Bank of Belgium supervise the Belgian financial sector. According to the new supervisory model that entered into force in April 2011, the main powers of the FSMA concern the following matters: the supervision of financial markets and listed companies, the enforcement of rules of conduct on the market, the supervision of financial products and the supervision of financial services providers.

The main departments of the FSMA involved in the enforcement of statutory provisions (set out in subsection i, supra) are the Sanctions Committee and the Management Committee.

Judicial authorities

The Brussels Court of Appeal

By virtue of the Act of 2 August 2002 (Article 121(1)), the Brussels Court of Appeal may exercise judicial review in respect of certain administrative measures and sanctions taken by the FSMA, concerning, inter alia: (1) public offerings of securities (regulated by the Prospectus Act); (2) public takeover bids (regulated by the Public Takeover Bids Act); and (3) transparency obligations (as provided under the Transparency Act). In this respect, the Brussels Court of Appeal acts as an appellate body.

The Brussels Court of Appeal also has exclusive jurisdiction to act as the main forum in respect of all subjective claims5 made on the basis of the Public Takeover Bids Act (Article 41).6 Its decisions in this respect are rendered as first and last resort, and are only subject to limited judicial review on legal grounds by the Supreme Court of Belgium.

The courts of first instance (civil and criminal sections) and commercial courts Belgian commercial courts and Belgian courts of first instance (civil sections) have jurisdiction to handle civil liability claims initiated by investors, for example, on the basis of infringements of the Prospectus Act.

Criminal sections of Belgian courts of first instance also have jurisdiction to handle criminal cases and to impose criminal sanctions, when such sanctions are provided for under the relevant statutes and regulations.

iii Common securities claims

Infringements of the Prospectus Act

The FSMA and Belgian courts (both criminal and civil or commercial) have been confronted with litigation relating to violations of the Prospectus Act (e.g., proceedings relating to incomplete, misleading or erroneous information contained in prospectuses).

Litigation in connection with public takeover bids

Public takeover bids relating to significant companies in the Belgian economic landscape have occasionally resulted in litigation, essentially between majority and minorityshareholders. Market abuse (including insider trading)

Several cases brought before the FSMA and criminal courts have involved market abuse. Among these cases, insider trading is relatively frequent (see Section III, infra).

Under the Act of 2 August 2002, issuers of securities admitted to trading on regulated markets must establish registers including the names of their internal and external workers (including external advisers, such as lawyers and accountants), who may have access to inside information. The existence of these lists of insiders tends to prevent the occurrence of insider trading among such external advisers.

Violation of transparency obligations

Claims related to transparency obligations (including notification obligations) under the Transparency Act tend to remain relatively limited.

Secondary liabilities

Claims relating to secondary liabilities (in respect of attorneys or accountants, for instance) are quite rare too.7

II PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT

i Forms of action

Private enforcement proceedings8 may be initiated by the relevant issuer of securities; by individual investors (being natural persons or legal entities); or under certain circumstances, by individuals acting collectively in the framework of a class action within the meaning of the Belgian Code of Economic Law.

In this Section we will focus on prospectus liability claims, civil claims against the regulator and civil claims for which class actions are available.

Prospectus liability claims

Individual investors may bring civil claims against an issuer of securities (in the context of a public offering of securities) or a bidder (in the context of a public takeover bid), in respect of losses incurred as a result of incomplete, erroneous or misleading information in the prospectus, respectively on the basis of the Prospectus Act or the Public Takeover Bids Act.

The prospectus under Belgian law

The prospectus is considered under Belgian case law and among Belgian legal scholars as a fundamental legal document, on which investment decisions are supposed to be made.9 The accuracy of the information contained in the prospectus is therefore of crucial importance10 and may give rise to liability claims, if such information proves to be incomplete, erroneous or misleading.

In this respect, the prospectus relating to a public offering of securities or to a public takeover bid must identify the natural or legal persons who are responsible for its content.

There remains some debate among Belgian legal scholars as to the contractual or non-contractual nature of prospectus liability claims. The FSMA tends to consider that the prospectus constitutes pre-contractual information.11 Therefore, if a prospectus containing false or misleading information has been published and has caused damage to an investor, the misled investor should sue the person or persons responsible for the prospectus in tort (on the basis of Articles 1382–1383 of the Belgian Civil Code).12

Civil liability for incomplete, misleading or erroneous information

Article 61(2) of the Prospectus Act and Articles 21(2), 29(2) and 34(3) of the Public Takeover Bids Act provide that the relevant persons (mentioned in the prospectus) will be held jointly and severally liable in respect of any incomplete, misleading or erroneous information contained in the prospectus.13

These provisions further state that any loss incurred by an investor will be presumed as resulting from such incomplete, misleading or erroneous information.14

This presumption alleviates the burden of proof borne by the investor seeking damages.15 According to most legal scholars, this presumption applies only for the benefit of investors relying on the said information in the framework of the transaction contemplated in the prospectus.16

This presumption is nevertheless rebuttable. The legal or natural persons liable for the content of the prospectus may therefore submit evidence that there is no causal relation between the information contained in the prospectus and the loss incurred by the said investor.

The defendants may also demonstrate that the plaintiff did not suffer any damage or that the information contained in the prospectus is not false or misleading. In principle, even non-material prospectus deficiencies may lead to civil liability. However, in practice, if the deficiency is not material, the defendant should be able to demonstrate that the damage was not caused by the deficiency in question.

Civil liability claims against the regulator

Individual investors and issuers of securities may make civil liability claims against the FSMA or its staff, in respect of losses incurred as a result of an act or an omission by the FSMA or its staff.

Under Article 68 of the Act of 2 August 2002, the FSMA and its members and employees may only be held liable towards third parties (including investors and issuers of securities) for their acts or omissions, if such acts or omissions constitute fraud or gross negligence.

Mere negligence will therefore be insufficient for the FSMA (or its members and employees) to be held liable towards third parties, from a civil law perspective. This favourable legal regime limits liability claims against the FSMA. However, the constitutionality of this liability regime has not been tested in court.

Class actions

Following an amendment to the Belgian Code of Economic Law (Act of 28 March 2014), class actions have been made available as from 1 September 2014 for a limited number of claims,17 relating inter alia to certain types of manipulation of reference indices and the public solicitation of funds without appropriate licences or registrations (i.e., without prior approval of the relevant regulatory authorities) in Belgium.

It is noteworthy that breaches of legal obligations under the Prospectus Act and the Public Takeover Bids Act are excluded from the scope of such class actions, pursuant to the Belgian Code of Economic Law.

ii Procedure

The main procedural features of each of the three types of civil securities claims mentioned in subsection i, supra are set out below.

Prospectus liability claims

Claims based on the Prospectus Act – specific procedural features

In the context of a public offering of securities, the investor seeking damages from the issuer of securities on the basis of the Prospectus Act may act before the relevant court of first instance (civil section) or the relevant commercial court, in accordance with the provisions of the Belgian Judicial Code.

If there are pending criminal proceedings in respect of the alleged breach of the Prospectus Act, the plaintiff may also choose to initiate civil liability proceedings before the criminal court seised of such criminal proceedings.

The statute of limitation for filing a claim in tort is five years (Article 2262 bis of the Belgian Civil Code). This five-year period of limitation starts when the plaintiff becomes aware of the damage incurred (or its aggravation) and the identity of the person or persons responsible for the damage. No specific procedural rules apply to prospectus liability under the Prospectus Act in this respect.

Claims based on the Public Takeover Bids Act – specific procedural features

In the context of a public takeover bid, all claims based on the Public Takeover Bids Act (including, according to several legal scholars, civil liability claims based on violations of this Act) are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of appeal of Brussels.18

Pursuant to Article 41(2) of the Public Takeover Bids Act, such actions are subject to an extremely short statute of limitation. Such actions must be brought within 15 calendar days following the day on which information in respect of the relevant decision or event (giving rise to the claim) was made available to the plaintiff19.

The Brussels Court or Appeal has nevertheless held that the 15-day statute of limitation does not apply to civil liability proceedings.20 Most legal scholars seem to follow the same approach.21 The applicable statute of limitation should therefore be identical to civil liability claims under the Prospectus Act.

Civil claims against the regulator

In the context of a public offering of securities, the issuer of securities or the investor seeking damages from the FSMA on the basis of a breach of the regulator’s obligations may act before the court of first instance (civil section) of Brussels. In the context of a public takeover bid, civil liability claims against the FSMA

based on the Public Takeover Bids Act are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of appeal of Brussels. The legal basis is identical to that for prospectus liability claims set out in subsection i, supra (Article 41 of the Public Takeover Bids Act).

Class actions

The Belgian Code of Economic Law states that only one representative may represent the relevant class in court. This representative must either be a consumer protection association or an organisation incorporated at least three years before the class action was initiated, with a purpose related to the interests of the class.

The group of plaintiffs may either be organised as an opt-in class (meaning that each member must confirm his or her willingness to be part of the class) or an opt-out class (meaning that the class will comprise all members who have not expressly asked to be excluded from the class). The court seised of the class action must decide which mechanism is more suitable, on a case-by-case basis.

Following the first phase, where the court must resolve upon the admissibility of the suit, the second phase serves as a cooling-off period: the parties must attempt to settle their dispute. If the cooling-off period fails to convey satisfactory results or if the court refuses to approve the settlement reached by the parties, the case will be assessed on the merits. If the class action succeeds, the court will appoint a liquidator, entrusted with the task of distributing the compensation paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs.

iii Settlements

Prospectus claims and civil claims against the regulator

In principle, parties to civil liability proceedings – including public authorities, such as the FSMA – may decide to settle their claims at any time, by means of a settlement agreement, within the meaning of Article 2044 of the Belgian Civil Code. Such settlement is not subject to judicial review.

There are no specific rules governing attorneys’ fees in this respect. Attorneys’ fees remain subject to general principles of Belgian judicial law and to the rules established by the relevant Bar authorities. ‘No cure, no pay’ arrangements are strictly forbidden, by virtue of Article 446 ter of the Belgian Judicial Code.

Class actions

In the framework of a class action, as indicated above, the second phase (the cooling-off period) of the process is supposed to lead to a settlement between the parties. This settlement is subject to judicial review. The relevant court may refuse to approve the settlement if the compensation provided for in the settlement agreement is ‘manifestly unreasonable’.

Rules governing attorneys’ fees for class actions are identical to those described above for prospectus claims and civil claims against the regulator.

iv Damages and remedies

Depending on the contractual or non-contractual nature of the claim, the amount of damages that may be granted to the plaintiff may vary.

In respect of contractual claims, the defendant’s obligation to indemnify the plaintiff is limited to the foreseeable prejudice’ suffered by the plaintiff as a result of a violation of the relevant contractual obligation (pursuant to Article 1150 of the Belgian Civil Code). The prejudice itself must be foreseeable – regardless of the amount of damages that the defendant may have to pay eventually.

In respect of non-contractual claims, the defendant must indemnify the plaintiff for the entirety of the damage incurred (pursuant to Articles 1382–1383 of the Belgian Civil Code).

The main debate – under Belgian case law and among Belgian legal scholars – in respect of prospectus liability claims refers to the calculation of damages.

As indicated above, the plaintiff must provide evidence of the loss incurred and justify the amount of damages sought. This often proves to be very difficult as the plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she would have behaved differently if the information provided in the prospectus was accurate and also that such behaviour would have resulted in a better financial result.22

Most legal scholars tend to consider that, under such circumstances, the plaintiff may only seek indemnification for a loss of opportunity – in this case, the loss of an opportunity to make a better investment or to mitigate the damage incurred.23 Consequently, the amount of damages that the court may grant in this respect tends to be relatively limited. The court must determine the value of the lost opportunity (to make a better investment or to mitigate the prejudice suffered). In practice, courts tend to quantify damages by assessing the likelihood of a more favourable outcome. The value of the chance is expressed as a percentage of the gain that the plaintiff could have obtained or as a percentage of the loss that the plaintiff could have avoided, in the absence of the harmful decision or event. Where such quantification proves to be impossible, the court may grant the plaintiff a lump sum (attributed on an ex aequo et bono basis) that is substantially lower than the loss actually suffered.24

III PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT

i Forms of action

This Section will focus specifically on administrative and criminal forms of action applicable to infringements of the Prospectus Act, the Public Takeover Bids Act and Articles 25 and 25 bis of the Act of 2 August 2002 (essentially, market abuse – including insider trading).

Administrative proceedings

The FSMA is entrusted, together with the National Bank of Belgium, with the supervision of the financial sector in Belgium.

In this respect, depending on the relevant legal basis,25 the FSMA may, inter alia, take the following administrative measures, without prior judicial authorisation:

a refuse to grant its approval in respect of envisaged transactions (e.g., by refusing to approve the relevant prospectus);

b impose corrective measures (e.g., in respect of a given prospectus);

c issue injunctions towards issuers of securities, bidders or other parties;

d suspend or even forbid a voluntary public takeover bid;

e suspend trading in relevant securities;

f exercise broad investigation powers: for instance, the FSMA may require the disclosure of relevant documents or information; it may conduct on-site inspections of premises belonging to undertakings subject to its supervision; in this context, the FSMA may also require access to any IT systems operated by potential defendants.

Finally, the FSMA may also impose administrative sanctions for violations of securities law: administrative fines and periodic penalty payments.

These administrative measures and sanctions may equally apply to legal or natural persons.

Criminal proceedings

The above-mentioned infringements may also give rise to criminal proceedings, which are subject to the relevant criminal law provisions contained in the Prospectus Act, the

Public Takeover Bids Act and the Act of 2 August 200226 and also to general criminal law principles (contained in the Belgian Criminal Law Code and in the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure).

In practice, criminal proceedings relating to violations of securities law are relatively rare in Belgium – due, inter alia, to the lack of specialised judges in the field of financial law. The Public Prosecutor’s Office also suffers from a lack of technical and financial means in this respect.27

Cooperation between administrative and criminal authorities

The FSMA may cooperate with criminal courts and intervene in criminal proceedings, essentially at the following levels:28

a if, in the course of an administrative procedure or investigation, the FSMA finds that relevant breaches may be subject to criminal sanctions, it may (but is under no obligation to) inform criminal authorities accordingly (Article 74 of the Act of 2 August 2002); and

b the FSMA may also intervene in any pending criminal proceedings to ascertain that criminal sanctions provided for under the relevant provisions of the Prospectus Act, the Public Takeovers Bids Act and the Act of 2 August 2002 are properly applied to the relevant breaches (Article 124 of the Act of 2 August 2002).

ii Procedure

This subsection will focus on the salient features of administrative proceedings before the FSMA.

Criminal prosecution of securities-related enforcement actions is subject to general principles of criminal procedure (no specific rules apply in this respect).

Opening of an investigation

In accordance with Article 70 of the Act of 2 August 2002 (as amended on 25 April 2014), the Management Committee of the FSMA is entrusted with the discretionary power to launch an investigation in respect of breaches that may be subject to administrative sanctions – either on the basis of findings made by the FSMA itself, or on the basis of complaints filed by third parties.

The Management Committee appoints an auditor for the purpose of the investigation. In this process, the auditor may exercise the investigation powers referred to in subsection i, supra. The auditor must act with due regard for the rights of defence (Article 70(1) bis of the Act of 2 August 2002).

Investigation report

Upon completion of the investigation, the auditor draws up a report, which is then submitted to the parties involved (including the defendant). Such parties may comment upon the draft investigation report within a period of one month and, as the case may be, request further investigation as to the subject matter of the report.

The final version of the report is submitted to the Management Committee.

Further proceedings

In accordance with Article 71 of the Act of 2 August 2002, the Management Committee

must decide on the basis of the auditor’s investigation report whether: (1) to launch formal proceedings against the defendant by referring the case to the Sanctions Committee; (2) to close the file (without further action); or (3) to enter into a settlement agreement with the defendant (see subsection iii, infra).

The decision to refer the case to the Sanctions Committee is notified to the defendant and to the Sanctions Committee.

Decisions of the Sanctions Committee

The Sanctions Committee must preserve the defendant’s rights of defence, by means of an adversarial (inter partes) procedure. In principle, the defendant is entitled to a two-month window within which to present any objections he or she may have in respect of the above-mentioned notification and investigation report (Article 72 of the Act of 2 August 2002).

Upon completion of the adversarial procedure, the Sanctions Committee must render its decision. It may decide to close the file or to impose an administrative fine on the defendant.29

The fact that administrative sanctions have been imposed by the FSMA on a defendant does not preclude criminal authorities from imposing further (criminal) sanctions on the defendant. The criminal authorities must nevertheless take into account previous (final) administrative sanctions and settlements when imposing additional fines on the defendant (Article 73 of the Act of 2 August 2002).

This situation casts doubt as to the conformity of Belgian legislation with the non bis in idem principle, which is guaranteed under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Belgian legal scholars regularly raise this issue.30

In addition, legal scholars and practitioners have expressed doubts on the compliance by the FSMA with the due process rights of the defendants (e.g., breach of the level-playing-field rules).

Right of appeal

An appeal against the administrative sanction adopted by the FSMA may be lodged  with the Brussels Court of Appeal. This right of appeal is not limited to the parties to the proceedings before the FSMA: any legal or natural person having an interest in the FSMA’s decision may initiate appeal proceedings (Article 121(2) of the Act of2 August 2002).

iii Settlements

Settlements in respect of administrative proceedings

Before notifying grievances to the Sanctions Committee (as described in subsection ii, supra), the Management Committee may enter into a settlement agreement with the defendant, provided that the defendant has agreed to cooperate with the FSMA in the investigation and that the defendant agrees with the proposed terms of settlement (Article 71(3) of the Act of 2 August 2002).

Such settlements are not subject to judicial review. No specific rules apply in respect of attorneys’ fees (other than general rules mentioned in Section II, supra).

Settlements in respect of criminal proceedings

In accordance with Article 216 bis of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure, the Public Prosecutor may decide to enter into a settlement with the defendant, in respect of criminal offences referred to under the Prospectus Act, the Public Takeover Bids Act and the Act of 2 August 2002. The amount to be paid by the defendant must be proportional to the gravity of the offence and cannot exceed the maximum of the fine provided by law for the said offence.

Such a settlement may be entered into even if criminal proceedings are already pending before the relevant criminal court.

Entering into such a settlement entails the termination of the criminal proceedings. Such settlement is subject to judicial review, exercised by the competent criminal court. The court will ascertain, in particular, the acceptance and the fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the settlement by the defendant.

No specific rules apply in respect of attorneys’ fees (other than general rules mentioned in Section II, supra).

iv Sentencing and liability

Administrative proceedings

The Sanctions Committee may impose fines on the defendant, if the existence of the relevant breach is established. The range of applicable fines depends on the relevant legal provision (i.e., the Prospectus Act, the Public Takeover Bids Act or the Act of 2 August 2002).

            As a matter of principle, Article 72(3) of the Act of 2 August 2002 provides that: (1) the Sanctions Committee must state the grounds on which its decision is based; and (2) the amount of the fine imposed by the Sanctions Committee must be determined on the basis of the gravity of the breaches committed by the defendant and taking into account the benefits or profits derived from such breaches.

Criminal proceedings

Depending on the applicable legal provision, the defendant may be condemned by the relevant criminal court to a sentence of imprisonment, a fine or both. In practice, imprisonments related to violations of securities law are extremely rare in Belgium. Most cases result in the payment of fines or in a settlement (entered into in accordance with Article 216 bis of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure, as described in subsection iii, supra).

IV CROSS-BORDER ISSUES

This Section will focus on conflicts of jurisdiction within the European Union, in respect of claims made against issuers of securities.

Under Belgian law, any legal proceedings concerning civil or commercial matters in respect of a private legal entity having its statutory seat (registered office), its central administration or its principal place of business on the territory of a Member State of the European Union must be initiated in accordance with the provisions of EU Regulation 1215/2012 (the Brussels I bis Regulation).31

Pursuant to Article 4 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, an issuer of securities may therefore be sued before the courts of the Member State where its statutory seat, central administration or principal place of business is located.

In addition, in matters relating to tort, proceedings may be brought in the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur (Article 7 (2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation).

            In a recent judgment,32 the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) ruled on the question of a court’s jurisdiction in a dispute related to the distribution of a prospectus. In the case at hand, a consumer domiciled in Austria invested through an Austrian bank in certificates issued by Barclays Bank (based in the United Kingdom). At the time of the issue of the certificates, Barclays Bank also distributed a base prospectus in Austria. Eventually, the sums invested were largely lost. The investor brought an action before Austrian courts seeking the payment of damages on the basis of liability of Barclays Bank. The Austrian court referred the case to the ECJ.

            The ECJ ruled that the liability of Barclays Bank relating to the distribution of the prospectus must be based on tort, within the meaning of Article 5(3) of EU Regulation 44/2001 (currently, Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation), which grants jurisdiction to the court of the place where the loss occurred. The ECJ confirmed that the courts of the state where the investor is domiciled have jurisdiction on the basis of the place where the loss occurred, particularly when the damage alleged occurred directly in the investor’s bank account held with a bank established with the area of jurisdiction of those courts

V YEAR IN REVIEW

i Legislation and administrative case law

On the domestic scale, two significant legislative changes occurred in 2014:

a the Act of 28 March 2014, introducing class actions in the Belgian legal landscape (see Section II, supra, in this respect); and

b the Act of 25 April 2014, which amended various aspects of the procedure applicable to administrative actions brought before the FSMA. Inter alia, this act allows the FSMA to disclose the identity of the parties subject to administrative sanctions, even if an appeal is pending regarding these sanctions. Under the previous legal regime, published administrative decisions of the FSMA could not include the names of the relevant parties as long as an appeal was pending.

The 2014 annual report of the FSMA is not yet available. The 2013 report indicates that a limited number of administrative investigations were carried out between 15 July 2011 and 31 December 2013. These investigations were essentially related to insider-trading cases (10 investigation files from a total of 18).33

In 2013, only one settlement agreement has been entered into between the FSMA and a group of defendants, in an insider-trading case. This settlement relates to the Bois Sauvage case (see footnote 27, supra).

ii Criminal case law

There are currently no publicly available statistics concerning criminal proceedings in the field of financial law. However, such proceedings are relatively rare and are usually avoided by means of a settlement with the Public Prosecutor’s Office (see Section III, supra).

            Criminal and civil liability proceedings are still pending in the famous Fortis case.34 The Public Prosecutor’s Office announced in October 2013 that criminal proceedings relating to this case are unlikely to be completed before 2018. A general class action mechanism under Belgian law would have prevented time-consuming formalities in the civil proceedings.

iii EU case law

The ECJ seized an opportunity to clarify the concept of ‘inside information’ under EU law. In a recent judgment35 the ECJ ruled that to prevent insider dealing, information must be made public even if the holder of the information does not know how precisely such information will influence the price of financial instruments.

VI OUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONS

The major change in the Belgian securities law landscape in the coming months will result from the progressive implementation of the new EU regulatory package regarding market abuse, including the implementation into Belgian law of EU Directive 2014/57/ EU on criminal sanctions for market abuse.

This new legal framework will enhance the efficiency of supervision over the financial sector in Belgium and strengthen the position of the FSMA.

 

============================================

 

1 Grégoire Jakhian is a partner and Mathias Lamberty is an associate at Loyens & Loeff.

2 These are often legally non-binding, but binding in practice.

3 In the event of a violation of a disclosure duty (under the Transparency Act), an action may also be brought in the form of summary proceedings before the president of the relevant commercial court, on the basis of Article 516 of the Belgian Companies Code. The president of the commercial court may take certain measures under this provision, including the suspension of the voting rights attached to the relevant securities.

4 Taton, Les recours juridictionnels en matière de régulation (Brussels, Larcier, 2010), pp. 100–101; and Taton, ‘Les nouvelles procédures de sanctions devant la FSMA et la BNB’, Droit bancaire et financier (2012), p. 105.

5 Subjective litigation relates to individual rights that a given party may invoke on the basis of legal or regulatory provisions – as opposed to objective litigation, in the framework of which the objective validity of a statute or an administrative decision is challenged, on the basis of superior sources of law.

6 See Section II, infra regarding civil liability claims made on the basis of the Public Takeover Bids Act. Private enforcement actions relating to other subjective rights will not be covered in this Chapter.

7 One of the ‘Big Four’ audit companies has been facing criminal liability proceedings in its capacity as former statutory auditor to the Belgian company Lernout & Hauspie. The founders of Lernout & Hauspie were accused of fraud, in the aftermath of the firm’s bankruptcy. The Ghent Court of Appeal decided in 2010 that the statutory auditor was not to be held criminally liable, owing to a lack of satisfactory evidence. An employee of the statutory auditor, who was in charge of auditing the accounts of Lernout & Hauspie, has been condemned to pay a fine for his professional misconduct, even though the Court of Appeal acknowledged that he did not act wilfully. The Supreme Court of Belgium subsequently confirmed the judgment rendered by the Ghent Court of Appeal. Civil liability proceedings initiated in Belgium by the former shareholders of Lernout & Hauspie against the founders and the statutory auditor are still ongoing.

8 For a discussion of the appeal proceedings available to issuers of securities and third parties (including investors) against administrative measures and sanctions taken by the FSMA, see Section III, infra.

9 Brussels Court of Appeal, 19 January 2006, unpublished.

10 Bruyneel, ‘Les prospectus financiers : quelques réflexions’, Mélanges John Kirkpatrick, (Brussels, Bruylant, 2004), pp. 111–116.

11 ESMA Report, ‘Comparison of liability regimes in Member States in relation to the Prospectus Directive’ (ESMA/2013/619 Ann III, 30 May 2013), p. 14.

12 Fyon, ‘Quelques réflexions sur l’évolution de la responsabilité quasi-délictuelle en matière de prospectus’, in Synthèses de droit bancaire et financier: Liber amicorum André Bruyneel (Brussels, Bruylant), pp. 403–428; and Dotremont and Velge, ‘Securities Law in Belgium’,

International Securities Law Handbook (Best and Soulier (eds.), World Law Group, 2010), pp. 61–88.

13 Foriers (et al.), Les offres publiques d’acquisition – le nouveau régime (Brussels, Larcier, 2008), p. 293; and Vandendriessche, ‘Fraud-on-the-market: een causaliteitstheorie inzake beleggingsverliezen’, Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht (2011), pp. 277–308.

14 In the Prospectus Act, there is a specific additional requirement: this presumption mechanism may apply only if the relevant information was likely to have a material impact on the market.

15 Byttebier, Handboek fusies en overnames (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2012), pp. 541–543.

16 Dieux, ‘Examen de jurisprudence – droit financier (1990-2003)’, Revue critique de jurisprudence belge (2004), p. 262.

17 The Belgian Code of Economic Law refers to Articles 25(5), 27(2)–(3), 28 ter, 30 bis, 39(3) and 86 bis of the Act of 2 August 2002.

18 Foriers (et al.) (footnote 13, supra), pp. 332–333; and Malherbe (et al.), Précis de droit des sociétés – droit européen, droit belge (Brussels, Bruylant, 2011), pp. 1,180–1,181.

19 Gollier, ‘Contentieux des OPA: recevabilité de l’action individuelle’, Revue de droit commercial belge, 2010, pp. 1005–1007.

20 Brussels Court of Appeal, 10 February 2006; and Droit bancaire et financier (2006), p. 224.

21 Fyon, ‘Deux nouveaux jalons dans l’élaboration de la jurisprudence de la Cour d’appel de Bruxelles en matière d’offres publiques d’acquisition’, Droit bancaire et financier (2006, p. 238); and P.A. Foriers (et al.) (footnote 13, supra), pp. 334-334.

22 Gollier, ‘Information financière et lien de causalité’, in Les offres publiques et le prospectus, Brugge (Vanden Broele, 2007), p. 247.

23 Dieux (footnote 16, supra), pp. 260–261; and Brussels Court of Appeals, 15 March 1991, TRV, 1992, p. 258; and Brussels Court of Appeals, 3 October 2006, DAOR, 2007, p. 227.

24 Estienne, ‘La perte d’une chance dans la jurisprudence récente de la Cour de cassation’, Revue critique de jurisprudence belge (2013), pp. 605–624.

25 Respectively: Articles 67–72 of the Prospectus Act; Articles 35–40 of the Public Takeover Bids Act; Articles 33–38 and 78 of the Act of 2 August 2002.

26 Respectively: Articles 69–70 of the Prospectus Act; Article 38 of the Public Takeovers Bids Act; Articles 39–43 of the Act of 2 August 2002.

27 A recent case of insider trading, which resulted in both administrative and criminal proceedings, involved the Belgian holding company, Compagnie du Bois Sauvage. Compagnie du Bois Sauvage and several of its directors were sued by the FSMA and the Public Prosecutor’s Office before the Brussels Criminal Court, following the sale of their shares in the Belgian bank Fortis in the midst of the financial crisis of 2008. These administrative and criminal proceedings came to an end through settlement agreements entered into between Compagnie du Bois Sauvage, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the FSMA, in November 2013.

28 Taton (2012) (footnote 4, supra), p. 88.

29 Further to an Act dated 2 July 2010, the power to impose periodic penalty payments belongs exclusively to the Management Committee of the FSMA. The Sanctions Committee may no longer impose such periodic penalties.

30 Foriers, ‘Les infractions spécifiques aux sociétés cotées’ in the Criminal and Administrative Sanctions in Financial Matters Seminar, Van Ham & Van Ham (24 March 2011), pp. 25–26; Taton (2012) (footnote 4, supra), pp. 102–105; and Coenegrachts, ‘Bis repetita (non) placent’, Revue de jurisprudence de Liège, Mons et Bruxelles (2012), pp. 127–128.

31 If the defendant’s domicile (within the meaning of the Brussels I bis Regulation) is not located on the territory of the EU, conflicts of jurisdiction before Belgian courts will be settled in accordance with the provisions of the Belgian Code of Private International Law.

32 ECJ, 28 March 2015, C-375/13, Kolassa/Barclays Bank.

33 FSMA, Annual Report 2013 (Brussels, 2014), pp. 79–82

(www.fsma.be/fr/Doormat/ Publications/Annual%20reports.aspx)

34 Before its dismantlement in 2008, Fortis was a major banking, insurance and asset management group, based essentially in the Benelux countries. In 2007, Fortis suffered heavy financial difficulties following its joint acquisition of ABN AMRO (which involved two other major players, namely RBS and Santander). In the midst of the global financial crisis of 2007–2008, Fortis progressively collapsed. Following a massive bail-out by the Belgian and Dutch governments, the Belgian banking activities of the group were sold to BNP Paribas. This situation resulted in intense litigation before Belgian courts, involving the Fortis group, several of its directors, the Belgian government and a large number of minority shareholders, whose shares had lost most of their value. These minority shareholders claim inter alia that the information provided by Fortis (between the acquisition of ABN AMRO and the group’s demise in 2008) was misleading. Criminal and civil liability proceedings are still pending in this respect – even though the dismantling of the Fortis group has been completed in the meantime.

35 ECJ, 11 March 2015, C-628/13, Lafonta/AMF.

 

 

The Securities Litigation Review

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd.

This article was first published in The Securities Litigation Review - Edition 1

(published in June 2015 – editor William Savitt).

For further information please email

Nick.Barette@lbresearch.com

Voir aussi : Loyens & Loeff CVBA ( Mr. Grégoire Jakhian )


Click here to see the ad(s)
Tous les articles Droit boursier

Derniers articles Droit boursier

European Systemic Risk Board on liquidity and leverage risks in investment funds
22/02/2018

On 14 February 2018, the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) published a Recommendation addressed to the Europea...

Read more

Taxe boursière : applicable désormais aussi aux opérations à l’étranger !
07/04/2017

Jusqu’au 31 décembre 2016, la taxe boursière était en principe due uniquement sur les...

Taxe boursière : applicable désormais aussi aux opérations à l’étranger ! Read more

The new Belgian REIF - Ready for 'take-off'
10/01/2017

The Royal Decree containing the regulatory framework for the new Belgian Real Estate Investment Fund (“REIF”) ...

The new Belgian REIF - Ready for 'take-off' Read more

Leveraged CFD and binary options banned from Belgian market
11/08/2016

In furtherance to our eAlert on the “Distribution of certain derivative financial instruments to retail clients: a p...

Leveraged CFD and binary options banned from Belgian market Read more

Derniers articles de Mr. Grégoire Jakhian

LexGO Network