Family analysis: Reversing the High Court’s controversial decision made in the case’s first appeal, the Court of Appeal’s judgment makes clear that a successful application under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996) for declaratory relief under common intention constructive trust principles must establish both the common intention itself, and reliance on the same by the claimant to their detriment; equity will not assist a volunteer. For the avoidance of doubt, such reliance is still a requirement where the common intention takes the form of an express agreement and relates to an increased share in the equity post-acquisition, as it did in the case. Although Lord Justice Lewison ultimately dismissed the appeal (the same outcome as the first appeal before Mr Justice Kerr), in doing so, he took pains to dismantle Kerr J’s incorrect reasoning that detrimental reliance is not a requirement in joint names cases where there is an express agreement. He also provided a detailed analysis as to how the statutory formalities of an express release of one joint owner’s beneficial interest may be established via electronic signatures – the significant consequences of this will be increasingly vital for property and family law practitioners in the digital age to understand fully. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the implications.

CASE HUB (appeals lodged by Deutsche Bahn at the General Court in Cases T- 289/11, T- 290/11 and T- 521/11) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 18 December 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts ARCHIVE 08/04/2016 Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into Deutsche Bahn (case numbers COMP/39.915, COMP/39.731 and COMP/39.678). The Commission accepted commitments from Deutsche Bahn on 18/12/2013. Latest developments On 8 April 2016, the Commission terminated the commitments accepted from Deutsche Bahn early after new competitors entered the market–within 18 months of the acceptance of the commitments, several energy providers have entered the traction current market; in 2015, they supplied over half of the combined traction current demand of non-Deutsche Bahn railway companies. The commitments included a break clause that could be activated if in one calendar year over 25% of the total traction current demand of non-Deutsche Bahn railway undertakings was supplied by alternative energy suppliers. This threshold was reached in 2015,

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 9 April 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related/similar cases. Case facts Outline Judgment of the Supreme Court ruling that a claim was brought out of time in relation to the follow-on damages action brought by Deutsche Bahn and others against Morgan Crucible and others following the European Commission’s infringement decision in the Electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products cartel. The Supreme Court issued its judgment on 09/04/2014. Parties Claimants 31 claimants lodged a claim: (1) Deutsche Bahn AG(2) DB Netz AG(3) DB Energie GmbH(4) DB Regio AG(5) S-Bahn Berlin GmbH(6) S-Bahn Hamburg GmbH(7) DB Regio NRW GmbH(8) DB Kommunikationstechnik GmbH(9) DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG(10) DB Bahnbau Gruppe GmbH(11) DB Fahrzeuginstandhaltung GmbH(12) DB Fernverkehr AG(13) DB Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd (14) Loadhaul Limited (15) Mainline Freight Limited (16) Rail Express Systems Limited (17) DB Schenker Rail International Limited

Law360, London: Two subsidiaries of Deutsche Bank AG have been fined a total of €25m for failing to fulfill environmental, social and governance (ESG) promises in promotional materials for investment products, the Frankfurt Prosecutor's Office said on 2 April 2025.

German stock exchange.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 29 March 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed merger between Deutsche Börse AG and London Stock Exchange Group plc (Case M.7995). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in a number of markets in the financial market infrastructure sector. Latest developments On 29 March 2017, the Commission prohibited the transaction. The Commission concluded that the transaction would have created a de facto monopoly in markets for clearing fixed income instruments. The proposed commitments offered by the parties did not adequately address the Commission's concerns. Parties Deutsche Börse AG (DB), a Germany-based diversified financial market infrastructure organization. It operates the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, a regulated market place for the trading of stocks, bonds and various other financial instruments. It also operates other financial exchanges, including the Eurex and EEX exchanges. Non-trading activities include clearing, settlement and custody services, as well as market data, indices and other

CASE HUB (note–appeal lodged in Case T- 175/12 Deutsche Börse v Commission) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 1 February 2012; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed merger between Deutsche Börse and NYSE Euronext (Case M.6166). The Commission prohibited the transaction the transaction 01/02/2012. Parties Deutsche Börse and NYSE Euronext Deutsche Börse is a German-based company involved in all aspects of cash and derivatives markets. Deutsche Börse operates the Frankfurt Stock Exchange and also owns the majority of Eurex, the company that operates the Eurex Deutschland derivatives exchange. NYSE Euronext is a US-based company dual-listed in the US and France. It operates a number of stock exchanges throughout the world. It has four main business divisions—cash listing services, cash trading services, derivatives trading and clearing services and information services and technology services. In Europe, NYSE operates Liffe, a London based derivatives exchange that also operates derivatives exchanges in Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Lisbon.

CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the General Court in Cases T- 274/25, T- 320/25, and T- 522/25 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 3 July 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed acquisition of joint control of ITA Airways by Deutsche Lufthansa AG and the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance (M.11071). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in the provision of passenger air transport services. Latest developments On 3 July 2024, the Commission cleared the transaction, subject to commitments. The Commission accepted a package of remedies from the parties, to address the Commission’s competition concerns. Parties • Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Lufthansa)Lufthansa is headquartered in Germany. It is a global full-service carrier with domestic and international operations in passenger and cargo air transport. Lufthansa also operates a hub-and-spoke network with its principal hubs in Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich, Vienna and Brussels. Its subsidiaries include Austrian Airlines, Brussels Airlines, Eurowings, Swiss International Airlines and Air Dolomiti. Lufthansa is

MLex: A breakdown in talks between Meta Platforms and Deutsche Telekom over payments for data transport services has led the US social-media company to use a third-party provider to route its data traffic to Deutsche Telekom's network.

MLex: A German court decision to uphold a fine against leading property company Deutsche Wohnen over a data privacy breach has been applauded by Berlin’s data watchdog despite a significant reduction in the penalty following a long legal battle. A Berlin regional court slashed the fine to €900,000 from €14.5 million this week, saying the company had cooperated and worked to find a technical solution and build a compliant system.

The formal reduction in the value of a currency against other currencies. This is opposed to depreciation, which is the reduction in the value of a currency through market movements.

Law360: The US Supreme Court on 5 June 2025 overturned a Ninth Circuit decision refusing to enforce a US$1.3bn arbitral award issued to an Indian satellite communications company, ruling that the court's outlier interpretation of a jurisdictional question was incorrect.