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.
Tags: law, law & taxes