The year in review
Although the class action regime has been available in Denmark since 2008, only few cases have been initiated and finalised in Denmark.
To our knowledge, no empirical study is available on the mechanisms that result in parties opting for the route of class action, following other procedures or abstaining from making a claim. It is therefore an open question, what is the cause of the relatively scarce amount of cases, hereunder whether individual cases are filed instead of class actions. However, it is the general impression that an increase in investor-related cases has been seen over the past 10 years. This may be due to the fact that a number of foreign companies and organisations have been increasingly active with financing and managing such cases. The market has also seen funding of commercial litigation filed and run as one joint action by multiple plaintiff parties, but managed through the financing company, which also instruct the representing lawyer. In such cases, the financing company is, however, not formally a party to the proceeding.
In 2018, a decision in substance was reached in the Amagerbanken class action (under appeal), and the Eastern High Court rendered two important decisions (the AP Pension case and the OW Bunker case) on limits for the frame for prospectus liability class actions. These decisions are dealt with in more depth in Section III.ii). The decisions generally set out clear distinctions between cases, where individual factual or legal assessments are required, which are not eligible for class actions, and cases where the facts and legal assessments are of an identical nature, where class actions can be held to be the best option depending on other available options and the amount of claimants.