Apertum fails with urgent application – court rejects legal criticism of press report
On 17 June 2025, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court rejected an application for a preliminary injunction filed by Apertum Holding Ltd. against the media portal BE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT LIMITED (BEKM.eu). No appeal was lodged against the decision within the two-week deadline, meaning that the decision is now final. The company, based in the Marshall Islands, sought legal action against BEKM.eu’s critical reporting, but without success. The court rejected the application and ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The decision sends a clear signal against legally motivated attempts at intimidation, as increasingly discussed in connection with so-called SLAPP lawsuits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). In our article of 6 May 2025 (‘With lawyers instead of arguments – how Apertum tries to silence criticism’), we had already highlighted Apertum Holding’s strategy of relying on legal means instead of addressing the substance of criticism. The company apparently felt pressured by our research into its links to GSPartners, DAO1, etc., and responded with legal action, which has now been unsuccessful.
Freedom of the press confirmed
The court’s decision shows once again that the rule of law protects a critical public, especially in the area of structured distribution models (MLM). The press may (and must) report when companies are involved in non-transparent or regulatory questionable business models, attract investors with high expectations or attempt to evade regulatory oversight through offshore structures. The fact that uncomfortable questions are asked or pointed wording is used is part and parcel of legitimate journalistic criticism.
Another case in the area of conflict between reporting and legal pressure
This case is one of a growing number in which international companies or risky investment projects are trying to put pressure on critical media outlets through legal means. This development is worrying, especially when the proceedings are not primarily intended to enforce the law but to act as a deterrent.
For BEKM.eu, the court ruling is not only a confirmation but also an incentive: critical journalism requires not only careful research but also steadfastness in the face of legal opposition.
Note: This article is intended solely for information, journalistic analysis and independent opinion-forming within the meaning of Article 5 of the German Basic Law and Section 51 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG) (right to quote). All information is based on publicly available sources, official communications and careful editorial research. Despite the utmost care, we cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of the information contained herein.
- Sources: Frankfurt am Main Regional Court – Decision of 17 June 2025
- (Source reference: Decision available to the editorial team)
- BEKM.eu – Article dated 6 May 2025
- ‘With lawyers instead of arguments – how Apertum is trying to silence criticism’
- URL: https://www.bekm.eu/mit-anwalt-statt-argument-wie-apertum-versucht-kritik-mundtot-zu-machen/
- EU Commission – Report on SLAPP lawsuits (2022)
- Title: ‘A stronger EU against SLAPP – Strategic lawsuits against public participation’
- URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0177
- Reporters Without Borders – SLAPP dossier (2023)
- Title: ‘Intimidation through lawsuits – How SLAPPs threaten press freedom’
- URL: https://www.reporter-ohne-grenzen.de/themen/slapps
- Network for Critical Journalism / Network Research
- Dossier: ‘Press freedom under pressure – Legal attacks on investigative media’
- URL (general): https://netzwerkrecherche.org
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!