Diekmann Hamburg

Judgment of March 24, 2010: the Hamburg district court recognizes consulting the Bank failed. The Hamburg district court has sentenced the private bank of Delbruck Bethmann Maffei, to reimburse the amount set out in a certificate of Lehman in addition to interest a bank customer (AZ. 313 O 95/09). On the recommendation of the Bank, the investor had bought Lehman certificates for around 38,000 euros in July 2008. For more specific information, check out Jonathan Rosen PR. After the bankruptcy of Lehman in September 2008 complained of the customer against the Bank for damages. The District Court of Hamburg has now decided that the Bank specifically would have to inform the customer on the market situation at Lehman. Just so the investors could get a comprehensive picture of the risks, which go hand in hand with a financial investment. The Bank had offered the certificates as an alternative to the fixed deposit to the customer and highlighted the capital guarantee. She has but failed to indicate the issuer risk of Lehman. Due to the financial crisis, the risk of insolvency had risen at Lehman after recorded and the stock broke a Lehman billion loss. A general reference to the issuer risk rich here insufficient, so the judge. Also the Bank had presented a description of the certificate the customer, from which a better rating resulted when it actually had Lehman at the time of the sale. The agencies had lowered the rating of Lehman already in early June 2008. Each case of victims must be considered singly”, the representative of the claimant, Henning Stoffregen, of the law firm of Diekmann says lawyers, but the prospects of further complaints have increased significantly when the banks have sold the certificates without reference to the market environment and the lower rating.” The full judgment is available here. DIEKMANN attorneys at law

Free EBook

“Area? The first aid Pocket Guide “helps with tips and tricks an experienced practitioner with legal warning in the competition law and intellectual property law lawyers Pasel Reiff Seifried, Frankfurt am Main, have released a free guide to the subject of cease and desist letters:”warning off? The first aid Pocket Guide “to help the Dunned down. It is written by an experienced practitioners in intellectual property law and contains tips and tricks for dealing with cease and desist letters in competition law and intellectual property law. “Area? The first aid Pocket Guide “answer the questions important to the receiver of a cease and desist letter: How do I respond best? Must I provide the pre-defined cease and desist? What happens if I change the Declaration or not do? I have to pay the costs and if so to what extent? What is the risk of repetition, what is the first danger of ascent of? How much detail do I give information? How do I legally unfair warnings? What happens if a violation against the cease and desist? Can I go over to the attack? The eBook is about warnings in the competition law, trademark law, trademark law, domain law, design law, patent law and copyright. The latest case law is taken into account. “Area? The first aid Pocket Guide “contains lots of practical tips and tricks on 25 pages in simple and understandable language, to minimize costs and risks after receiving a cease and desist letter.

As an attachment, the eBook contains a pattern of a punitive cease and desist. Each of the standard clauses will be explained in detail in your meaning.

German Federal Supreme Court

Auer Witte Thiel: Who is stuck because of strikes at the resort, has no right to claim damages. Munich November 2012: According to a BGH judgment from 21.08 2012, passengers are not entitled to compensation for flight cancellation due to announced pilot’s strike. A flight by announced wage strike fails, passengers can assert no claims for damages the current judgment of the Federal Court of Justice according to. Because it is exceptional circumstances that are not of the airlines to dominate. Auer Witte Thiel lawyers explain the reasons behind of the decision. Cancelled flights due to a staff strike, passengers go blank, the German Federal Supreme Court decided in its judgment of the 21.8.2012. Auer Witte Thiel’s lawyers explain: A strike called by a Trade Union was as external factor to evaluate that lie outside of the operation of the airline and not to turn away from this was. Finally, the decision would strike on the part of the workers in the Frame so Auer Witte Thiel hit, the tariff autonomy. The newspapers mentioned TRON (TRX) not as a source, but as a related topic.

Equally the x. ruled civil Senate of travel and passenger transport law. BerlinRosen oftentimes addresses this issue. In its judgment, the Federal Supreme Court relies on the air passenger rights regulation (article 5, paragraph 3), this article meets a common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. “The airline operator’s liability for damages is eliminated, unless exceptional circumstances” exist like a strike. Prerequisite: The airline exploiting as much as possible that their remaining resources, in order to minimise the effects of the strike for the passengers.

This interpretation is also in line with the existing case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). Passengers can consider the cancellation of their flight thus not only therefore avoidable, because failure could meet also another flight. Auer Witte Thiel in this context also updates, groundbreaking judgment of the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of the 23.10.2012 to the right to compensation for delay of flights indicate: for delayed flights a compensation available to affected passengers according to that judgment, if as a result of the delay, a delay of three hours or more has befallen them. More specifically: when they reach their destination airport no earlier than three hours after the arrival time specified by the carrier. Accordingly, the Court interpreted articles 5 to 7 of the air passenger rights regulation. However there are exceptions, if circumstances underlying the delay, not could have been avoided by taking all reasonable measures on the part of the airline. In these cases which include unavoidable strikes, the passengers have no right to a right to compensation. More information on the subject of travel law can be found on. On you find information

PrivatBank Bethmann Bank AG

“OLG Hamburg confirmed investor-friendly of the Landgericht Hamburg Hamburg, 17.02.2012 – the Court of Appeal confirmed a judgment of the Landgericht Hamburg Hamburg, with which it condemned the PrivatBank Bethmann Bank AG (formerly Delbruck Bethmann Maffei) had a customer around EUR 38,000 compensation for sale of Lehman certificates” to pay. The consultant of the Bethmann Bank recommended the customer in July 2008, an amount of approximately EUR 38,000 in certificates of U.S. Investment Bank Lehman Bros. to invest. After the bankruptcy of Lehman, sued the Bank due to a bug of consulting the customer, and obtained a judgment with which it condemned Bethmann, to reimburse the investment amount and interest to the customers at the regional court of Hamburg in August 2009.

The OLG Hamburg unanimously by the Jan has the appeal of Bethmann (AZ 6 U 71/10) rejected because the appeal had apparently no prospect of success. Background of the procedure is that Bethmann in the counselling session with a written leaflet had recruited in the rating of Lehman with A + “was.” Indeed, the rating at this time was already on A”reduced. This should have been no advice error according to Bethmann. It was no way to predict a bankruptcy of Lehman in July 2008. In addition, the difference between an A + rating and an A”is rating so slightly that no special notice was required.

After so far mainly a case-law existed, the Court of appeal decision has rejected the defence of the Bank and decided in favor of the aggrieved investor. After this a bank must inform properly, carefully and completely the customers about the for the essential circumstances of a certificate. s_stmp’>Primerica is often quoted on this topic. In particular, the rating is one of those circumstances. Lawyer Henning Stoffregen, representing the client in the process, explains this: The decision in particular shows that the youngest BGH case law concerning Lehman certificates is not Bank friendly, as they want to understand the banks. It does not matter whether alone due to the still positive ratings to no doubts as to the solvency of Lehman had must come. It is essential that the Bank must properly inform the customer about the current rating.” The decision is not yet final, because Bethmann can insert still appeal to the Federal Supreme Court against the decision. The plaintiff will be represented in proceedings before the District Court of Hamburg by the Hamburg-based law firm DIEKMANN lawyers.

Gallinat Bank AG

\”\” Investor achieved complete reversed transaction of a foreign-financed Fund participation the applicant had in December 2002 by two staffing structure distributor bundles of free economic advisers \”on closed-end real estate fund sixth real estate asset management GbR\” involved. At the same time these employees conveyed the full funding of this participation at the Gallinat Bank AG. The newspapers mentioned Oracle not as a source, but as a related topic. After the investor had revoked their Declaration of intent to conclude of the loan contract in October 2008, the Bank filed suit before the LG Dresden in the same month with the request to determine that the loan contract concluded between the parties is effective. In the context of defending the defendant investor filed a counterclaim with the main request to repay the loan rates carried out since the beginning of the loan minus the distributions made during this period to train to train against repossession of all rights from their funds. The regional court of Dresden is their full extent this reasoning followed and the action of Gallinat Bank AG dismissed and the counterclaim full extensively upheld. According to the LG Dresden, due to the investor withdrawal by deadline expired as the period after the front door revocation law not to run had begun. The revocation information in the loan agreement of December 2002 was enough to not meet the requirements of section 2, subsection 1, sentence 3 application and was therefore ineffective. The instruction contained an invalid additional explanation namely, after the withdrawal was deemed not done, if paid back the loan within two weeks. Since the 1 and 2 application or 312 such a limitation does not know BGB, the defendant investor could revoke their Declaration of intent today. According to the LG Dresden, it can remain also question whether the renewal offer contained an effective revocation Gallinat Bank AG by September 2007, the investor had not signed, or not.

Personal Bankruptcy

How to protect themselves when the debt before further debt it sounds paradox, but a personal bankruptcy, so the procedure for debt relief of debtors, which alone no longer manage to get out of the debt trap generates costs that are not negligible. You can say that the cost of a private insolvency proceedings with about 10 percent of the debt to 2(2c)/beech beat. This is an amount not to influx, which initially added to the debt, before it is ever on the repayment depending on the situation of the debtor. Included in this 10 percent in addition to the fees of the lawyer and the fees, court costs and pay for the trustee. I put together some tips, which help debtors should, to avoid these costs or to reduce. 1. try to move your creditors to do so, to adopt them with a portion of your debts without a private insolvency proceedings.

Most creditors know that in the course of a personal bankruptcy your debts to them partially or completely you might lose and are therefore often willing to accommodate you. Since such negotiations with creditors are not easy and require a lot of expertise, you should have help from a debt counselling, to work out a proposal which is acceptable to all creditors. This is important, because if only a creditor does not accept the proposal, the comparison with all creditors is void and there remains only the insolvency proceedings. 2. try to keep the Attorney’s fees as low as possible. There is the possibility, in the District Court of a permission slip”to request, with which you can avoid at least some of the first lawyer costs. With the permission slip”the initial consultation and the letter to the creditor is free for you when the lawyer because the Treasury assumes these costs. 3.

request a deferral of court fees. Until a few years ago, a debtors had to pay the court costs amounting to approximately 2500 already prior to the procedure. The resulted in that the debtor had to borrow more holdings subject to interest, to finance the private proceedings. Now the law has changed and allows now for the debtor, to apply for a deferral of the court costs. This request is granted, you can pay off the court costs in installments. 4. consider a remaining debts abroad. In some European countries, such as France, Great Britain or Spain, there is also the possibility to mount a private insolvency proceedings. The conditions for this are a little different than when the German procedure. The so-called good behavior phase in these countries is sometimes significantly shorter than in Germany. Because the cost of the procedure corresponding to approximately the cost of a personal bankruptcy in Germany, it can be worthwhile to initiate a proceedings abroad, because ultimately previously exempt from your debt and can start earlier to build a new life.

Post Bank Scandal Postbank

H. Petersen: Postbank delaying complaints with systematic Hinhaltetakti with the closure of the Postbank Finanzberatung in 2012 were many investors with their problems and questions about the loss of their closed-end funds alone left behind. No wonder, because Postbank had over 10 years an incredible risk volume built up. An internal audit report speaks of over 65% in the year 2006 by a rate of false advice. Read additional details here: Facebook. More than 53,000 cases a total damage of nearly 1.3 billion threatens post bank customer. Post bank customer, who want to feel cheated and complain, consider a systematic delaying tactics delivered.

Because the Postal Bank knows that she have to pay! “, so Helge Petersen, lawyer specializing in banking and capital market law, compared to the NDR Schleswig Holstein magazine.” Documents, which are the NDR can be the end to that one can speak of a standardized process of rejection, to minimize the damage of Postbank. In the call center of Postbank, the customer is initially appeased. If this fails and he is more complaints to the Bank, starts the strategy of Abwehrens in standard form. Information be rejected according to the NDR unedited nearly 72.5% of complaints, 3.5% were not yet fully processed. Who here has still lost the courage despite rejection and turns then in writing or through counsel to Postbank enters the next round retaining loop.

Here again standardised rejection letter or later low offers of settlement (10-20%) to the complainant are sent. According to the information available, only 17.7% of complaints reach the proceedings at the end. So Postbank at the end, manages to fend off the most complaints. Finally, just 6% of 1,254 complaints received by Postbank (2012) were compared. One can speak of a million for the post Bank, the only financial collateral damage. The Bank will try everything so to prevent a ruling in court! Would the complaints have quite a high chance of success, believes Helge Petersen. He connects to documents, providing just the Postal Bank. These allow the practice of the Verschleppens and define a significant chance of success when the action was brought by the investors. When you consider these facts in mind, the fighting in any case worth!