Home General • Mathias Nittel

Mathias Nittel


would the consultant need to remind on the risk. Of materiality of this viewpoint for the investment decision of the OLG bejahten that played the redemption suspension prior to 2008 in fact no role and no major capital losses for investors have realized in a few cases of the suspension of the withdrawal does not preclude. Decision on the advice from non-bank consultants applicable in cases where customers through their bank or savings bank to invest in open-ended real estate funds before the 5th of August 2009 was advised, the claims for damages due to the breach of this obligation of consultation already in accordance with the 05 August 2009 repealed section 37 should be barred a.F. 15a WpHG. Lawyer Nittel sees opportunities but in the cases where even before the 5th August 2009 investing in open-ended real estate funds was recommended by non-bank Adviser. The background is that the corresponding provision of the Statute of limitations was only for banks and savings banks, but not for non-bank institutions. For this The ruling of the OLG Frankfurt cases creates additional good arguments.

Even those investors their bank has advised that after 5th August 2009 to the plant in open-ended real estate funds could enforce on this argument, if necessary, supported still damages. Also at the recommendation of real estate funds had to be pointed out the risk of closure in addition to participate in open-ended real estate funds were mostly security-oriented investors to invest in so-called real estate funds advised. Whether Alliance Flexi immo, DWS Immoflex asset mandate, premium management real estate investment, Santander Kapitalprotekt, LBB Statego reason or Santander Asset Management Fund, all these funds are invested in open-ended real estate funds. To the extent as they suspend the redemption of units, came the real estate funds no longer on invested capital of investors, what the result was, that even the real estate funds were in turn itself insolvent due to the massive wishes of their investors to return shares, and now its part of Possibility of suspension of the redemption of units had to make use. The US known investors were by their consultants not pointed out, that it at the real estate funds recommended to the investment already to suspend the redemption of units at the level of target investments, so that open-ended real estate funds in which the Fund has invested, had come out, that this risk existed even when the Fund itself. Thus, the obligation to inform the investor about the essential to him circumstances of recommended investment, have violated the advisors and advisory banks. The ruling of the OLG Frankfurt has greatly improved hence chances of investors in real estate funds, to obtain compensation from their advisers.

In General