Credit institution suffers setback before the Landgericht Koblenz Koblenz. The Landgericht Koblenz has sentenced to the payment of damages for wrong advice Volksbank Montabaur Hohr borders Germany. The Court gave an investor so right that had participated in 1992, on the recommendation of the Volksbank on the DG Immobilienfonds No. 30. The investors that participation was as a secure investment”in lasting value real estate sold. After the investors never received a payout and he noted that the capital invested by the impending insolvency of the Fund management company is probably lost, he started discussions with its bank.
But to his astonishment, the Bank showed little interested in his fate and the disaster caused by their investment advice. The Bank relied on statute of limitations and refused to Schadenersatzforderungen. Despite his poor health, the now elderly investors decided to complain against his bank. Because the plaintiff has no insurance, he had through his lawyer with a comparison Offer 50 percent of the investment amount. The Bank refused.
Apparently undeterred by the State of health of their longtime faithful Member, showed himself unrepentant for the Bank and insisted on its position. However, it was not disputed that the advice had resulted in that the investor has lost his money. Still felt the Bank in the right and left by their lawyers claim the thing be barred and Schadensersatzanspruche therefore lapses. Anyway, she didn’t make any mistakes in advising their clients. Contrary to the unique case-law of the Bundesgerichtshof, the Bank had concealed their customers but said it had received DM 8.000,-in Commission for the half hour sales pitch. The Court saw a guidance error herein and ordered the Bank to pay damages in the amount of complete investment of 100,000 DM (53.600 euros) together with interest at the rate of 5% above the respective base interest rate. Dr Michael Schulze lawyer of the law firm RWSF in Schweinfurt was satisfied: in addition to the positive judgment we look forward mainly in that the Court was considering the pitiful state of health of the plaintiff and him the rigors of a hearing in the trial saved.” “The wife of the applicant investor had made serious worry: an appearance at the trial would’ve taken him healthy and emotionally very”. The co-operative Bank is further unrepentant and has appealed in the meantime. Despite clear rulings of various courts of appeal and the Federal Court of Justice in similar cases will pull through also this dispute up to the last instance probably to more aggrieved investors to deter. The health and financial well-being of their members and customers here does not seem to be interested in the Bank. Lawyer Dr. M. Schulze lawyer specializing in banking law and capital market law
