Federal Supreme Court

Investor achieved complete reversed transaction of a foreign-financed funds at the same time which was awarded all loan rates paid in the past represented investor in relation to the counterclaim by Attorney and lawyer specializing in banking law and capital market law Patrick M. Zagni (Stuttgart). “The applicant had in December 2002 by two staffing of structure distribution company Federal of independent economic consultant” on the closed-end real estate funds sixth real estate asset management GbR “involved. At the same time, these employees conveyed the full funding of this participation at Gallinat-Bank AG. After the investor had revoked their Declaration of intent to conclude of the loan contract in October 2008, the Bank filed suit before the OLG Dresden in the same month with the request to determine that the loan contract concluded between the parties is effective. In the context of their actions defending the defendant investor has raised with the request, the credit rates paid since the beginning of the loan minus the this counterclaim Period to pay back train to train against repossession of all rights from their funds made distributions to them. The regional court of Dresden is this reasoning fully extensively followed and has the action of Gallinat-Bank AG dismissed and the counterclaim full extensively upheld. Now, the OLG Dresden expressly confirmed this decision.

According to the LG and OLG 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 not the legal requirements and was therefore ineffective. In September 2007, sent the Gallinat Bank, hidden rollover offers of the original loan into a larger plant collection, even though the interest rate had not yet expired. A revocation was effective according to the Bank was included in the attachments to this letter. The OLG Dresden now convincing reasons noted that also This revocation pushed for has been flawed with the result that the revocation of the investor was also effective and it is not obliged to make more loan payments. This hundred times practiced approach of the Bank served only the purpose to push a withdrawal to the original contract and also only with the reference to take note. “The LG Dresden chose here the correct formulation, stating that this approach only as sleight of hand” can be called. Since credit amount and Fund membership constituted a connected transaction, the investor of the Bank may require the repayment of the loan rates minus the so far received distributions and release of any collateral provided in the past.

In addition, the defendant investor is no longer obliged to pay the contractual loan rate of the Bank. The OLG Dresden has expressly approved the revision to the Federal Supreme Court (BGH). This show along with many other decisions that by Gallinat Bank AG used cancellation policy with the result that investors can explain even today the withdrawal were formally cancelled. Contact: Patrick M. Zagni Attorney / lawyer specializing in banking and capital market law boiler str. 19 70327 Stuttgart phone: 0711/9455855-0 fax: 0711/9455855-20

This entry was posted in News and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.