law

The District Court

Andreas mumber, GF M & A:, it is but a principle of equality of arms. Chobani Refugees follows long-standing procedures to achieve this success. The “polluter pays” has the insurer together with the legal department behind him and the victim must wait may fear. Our clients have usually no knowledge of the law in cases of damage, so it is only fair, if also a claimant a counsel to help take. Even if it is regarded only as a precaution and the cases are simply stored! “otherwise as in the representation of the person who caused the damage, the injured party with regard to the fee are likely to enjoy. The Kassel District Court decided in a single decision on 30 June 2009, a polluter’s liability insurer have to pay the fees of legal assistance of the victim, even if the cases are not disputed and easy! The District Court of Mannheim ruled in a similar case in 2007 already in favour of an injured party. Insurance consultants include lawyers and expert full lawyer the same fee schedule as General. An insurance consultant expertise corresponds to an expert full lawyer in the area of insurance law. Andreas mumber, GF M & A:, we Welcome to the current judgment of the District Court of Kassel and regard this as a positive signal for the victims.

Such judgments will create greater legal certainty for the victims! “the mumber & Associates clarifies in advance whether the cost of the insurer to take over. The fee of the mumber & Associates is quite cheap in comparison, so the fees of M & A for the injured party or a client is affordable. In addition, the company offered a part payment of the final fee, if not accept the fee the liability insurer. So the company wants to avoid that the clients get afraid of high and unaffordable fees. The M & A represents that setting must be the a good advice is not expensive and sets it to successfully! Mumber & Associates offers also the examination of statutory health insurance premium repayment on the current occasion.

Therefore, the insured to the beginning of the year a premium of the funds get it is. Further verifies whether an additional fee will be charged. Andreas Mumber, GF M & A:, this service applies to anyone who is legally covered by health insurance. We want to achieve a premium refund for our clients in the best case. The rumors of additional contributions, there is growing constantly, therefore, we have introduced this service on multiple requests of our clients!” Publisher: Mumber & Associates UG(haftungsbeschrankt) your insurance consultant managing director: Andreas mumber Internet: E-Mail:

Tags: ,

Thursday, October 19th, 2017 News Comments Off on The District Court

Supreme Court Investor

Party questioning an investor upon request of the defendant Bank of BGH had to deal with, whether an investor as a party in the process at the request of the defendant bank may be heard, i.e. he can be interviewed if necessary and under oath to the consultation or conclusion of investments currently with the question. Background is that a bank without asking to clarify according to settled case-law of the highest German civil court on received kickbacks. Otherwise she is damages. Refunds in particular commissions are, paid from fees and management fees which are not disclosed to the investor but. By not knowing the investor while no delusion with regard to the system can occur with this, but there is the possibility that misjudges how the interest on pages of the Bank is. The Bank, which does not comply with their duty of disclosure must thereby prove, that the damage at the investor would have occurred even if they are dutifully would behave, but the investors despite knowledge of the kickbacks would be; entered into the investment There is therefore a burden of proof. When investors however draws a system despite an appropriate note, nothing more can be a breach of the duty of disclosure.

In the case it was to first educating needy refunds. However, the Bank had argued that the enlightenment about a refund at the decision of the investor had played no role. Because it wanted to explicitly draw the proposed tax-optimized systems. Therefore it would have also if knowledge to a degree, so the Bank. The Court of appeal left ignore the request of the Bank on party interrogation of the investor.

The Supreme Court on the other hand makes it clear, however, is to consider that there is still sufficient link between the presentation of the Bank and the investors, and therefore the request for hearing of the investor. Because is the claim that even with the investor Note of the refund the system had acquired when it out, there is no causality between damage and the breach of duty (not information relating to a Commission). A further substantiation of evidence request is not required according to the BGH, what applies in particular not only for the witnesses, but also for the present party proof. However, it is to examine whether an abuse in the application of a party questioning is seen by the Court. This is however only then, if the application makes arbitrary “in into the blue”. Here, the Bank has put forward but concrete evidence of who speak in the total consideration for this. that the plaintiff also having regard to the refunds would have chosen the system. This includes the fact that it arrived the investors first and foremost on tax savings and only secondary yield opportunities have been taken into account. Were there to acquire the recommended product-related investments only with a similar refund could be assumed in this case that the decision was made independently of a refund by the claimant. The judgment of the Court of appeal was therefore repealed by the BGH and again remitted. There, the applicant as a party to the information of the Bank will then be heard. Federal Supreme Court, ruling of 26 February 2013 – XI ZR 445/10

Tags: , ,

Thursday, March 24th, 2016 News Comments Off on Supreme Court Investor

Categories

Pages