No Image Case-law Of The Bundesgerichtshof Is Not Always Transferable On New Mandates

Case-law of the Bundesgerichtshof does not in any case on new mandates transferable the Court there appeared the procedure noteworthy, that a larger number of investors, represented each by one and the same is based far from the homes of investors law firm (ROAR man), takes the GRE global real estate AG apparently essentially similar grounds to claim damages. How already in first instance was defeated by an applicant before the Oberlandesgericht Celle (9 U 148/08) represented by the law firm of ROAR man. (Final), the Court ruled in favor of GRE global real estate AG (RAe concern Landry). The applicant is entitled to any claims for damages. The applicant claimed inter alia the intermediary not pointed out they the risks of investment. The Senate could not follow this representation according to the evidence. Rather, the evidence has revealed that the mediator the issue prospectus of the applicant investor – continuous practice according to – already at the first of several consultations left to have. Also he have the corresponding risks after all if it is pointed to an entrepreneurial participation and these are not concealed.

The allegations of the applicant investor were in contradiction to the clear and unambiguous text of the declarations signed by the investor and drawing notes. Then, the complaining investor took namely noted that it involves winning system just not a trustee, but corporate participation with the risks and opportunities described in the prospectus (taken also to note). It seemed remarkable that a larger number of investors, represented takes each by one and the same away based far from the homes of investors Attorney law firm (ROAR man), the GRE global real estate AG apparently essentially similar grounds on damages in the process the Court. It was however misunderstood, that is aimed at the case-law of the Bundesgerichtshof’s argument cannot easily with the The GRE global real estate AG in line drawing seem be. Here, it was particularly apparent with which Akquisemethoden some firms operate to reach clients. There arises the question of whose interests here probably were in the foreground. GRE global real estate AG campaigned over the years 07/2001-05/2007 financial funds to the capital market a. With targeted advertising on the Internet, some self-proclaimed investors protection lawyers make apparently”like shops with supposedly aggrieved investors.

In the so-called Group of lawyers tried often to stir up doubts about the investors with regard to their previous investment decision with specific uncertainty. What however is not said here is that appears superficially attractive is the goal a recovery of capital created the company with legal means as opposed to the long-term goals, which followed the company with the financial resources of its investors. Advertising as collective shows presented individual decisions of the courts, be, to reduce the conscious perception of the risk of not inconsiderable costs. While Landry law firm, Munich, successfully avoided claims that it always depends on the assessment of the individual case show the variety of GRE AG and the care representative. A transfer of individual, picked out judgment reasons on new mandate conditions rarely leads to success. At least not in the affected investors, for whom the shot also likes backwards”we go. That he will be relieved of its obligations, nor that the payments be should; refunded him rather, he must have also even Court and Attorney’s fees. In not a few cases, these exceeded significantly the expected Auskehrungen. The GRE global real estate AG advises its investors, always first to seek dialogue with the society. In unique cases, this is the more flexible, less costly and faster solution.


View all posts by