Yalnizca

The World and Modern Science

  • Sep 30

    Landgericht Frankfurt am Main sentenced for wrong advice to a Lehman certificate with judgment of the 03.06.2011 Commerzbank AG 2-19 O 77/10 has the Landgericht Frankfurt am main the Commerzbank in one of our Member Kai Malte Lippke, Leipzig, for an investor-led lawsuit sentenced, to pay damages, because she contracted that she made a profit of 3.5% of the purchase price through the resale of Lehman certificates approximately 24,300 EUR. Commerzbank itself argued that she obtained the certificates for a 3.5% lower purchase price of Lehman Brothers when she resold them to investors. Thereon Commerzbank would need to enlighten the Court considers investors. The Court in its judgment, that a bank from a consulting contract is obliged to inform customers clearly about existing conflicts of interest, to enable them to verify the appropriateness of the advice itself. For the duty of disclosure was not crucial as a bank is a Remuneration achieved, whether through kickbacks, commissions or margins, but whether it is in a conflict between their duty to offer its customers only the best and most appropriate investments, and their interest in a possible high profits. Because such a conflict to profit margins, the Bank must enlighten and clearly their customers the amount of the profit margins.

    Also, the obligation to disclose profit margins even in the interest of effective investor protection is necessary. After the verdict, the Commerzbank must the investors the entire purchase price train to train against assignment of claims under the probably worthless Lehman certificates completely replace. The verdict is not yet final. It must be expected that Commerzbank at the Frankfurt higher regional court to appeal. However the appeal’s prospects for success would be doubtful, as the 17th and 19th Senate of the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt consider it not relevant, on which a payment will receive a Bank, but on the existence of place a conflict of interest. Also the higher regional court of Cologne with judgment of the 04.05.2011 13 U 165/10, decided that a bank that does not get certificates for their customers, but from their own stock they sold you, has to pay damages if she don’t enlighten about this. Victims should be necessarily pursue therefore their claims by a lawyer specializing in banking law and capital market law.

    Tagged as: ,
  • Copyright Act

    Filed under News
    Aug 10

    AG Munich, judgment of November 11, 2009, AZ.: 142 C-14130/09 also was in an earlier decision of the AG of Munich (judgment of November 11, 2009, AZ: 142 C-14130/09) noted that comes an application of 97a II Copyright Act only if there is a substantial infringement into account. In the matter was the Audiobook of “The way of the beam” accused the defendants of Dieter Bohlen on the Internet Exchange eDonkey to download offered. The Court sentenced the defendant to pay EUR 1006,00 to the plaintiff. In this decision, the applicability of 97a is negated II UrhG. The AG Munich took this as follows: “a capping of the incurred costs in accordance with article 97 a paragraph 2 UrhG present also did not come into consideration. The offer one Urheber Recht lieh LIEH copyright protected work within the framework of an Internet Exchange as eDonkey, is already not insignificant violation of law in the meaning of that provision. This arises from the fact that the contested infringement of rights in the public make of is a copyrighted work.

    It arrives for the infringement just not so, how many users actually accessed the offered work, but how many users of Internet swap copyrighted and made publicly accessible plant would have to access”the other versions are remarkable, because the Court assumed that regularly several 100,000 users is to use this Exchange. “It’s known court that at Internet exchanges such as eDonkey regularly several 100,000 users at the same time provided can access files on the download. Of this magnitude can be no longer assumed by a minor violation of the law, since unchecked and without reservation the copyrighted work was made available to a wide public. The referred to as far as exemplary cases of a minor violation of the law (insert a map on a private website, use a photograph in the) Under a sales offer an Internet auction Exchange) affect completely different bearing cases, because a significantly lower, gated persons addressed or is but offered the protected work is not for reproduction.” Attention should be also two further points of this decision. For one, the Court does a damages claim gem.

    97 para 2 UrhG amounting to 500.00 as appropriate. This is determined in the context of the license analogy. Still the Court makes it clear once again that no original power of attorney should be attached to a warning: “the warning was also due, even if no original authority according to section 174 BGB was attached to her. Although section 174 applies to BGB of its wording also business-like actions. A cease and desist letter as such but has no right shaping effect opposite the Dunned down. The injured person can successfully sue the infringer even without warning. The warning is only at the question of how the costs distribute ZPO are a role within the framework of the balance in accordance with article 93. “The provision of section 174 is a power of attorney be accompanied BGB with unilateral legal transactions, but not intended to make it easier for the infringer, to estimate the risk of costs of a process (OLG Hamm, judgment of 17. 7.2008, business signs 4 U 60/08).” More information is available on our website: your Tobias Arnold

    Tagged as: ,