Dragon Ball Z Bedding 0

BGH - Process for interest Betting

Has the German banking Customer wrongly advised?

the first time, the Supreme Court heard such a case. Deutsche Bank is threatening the dispute over the sale of risky interest rate bets a defeat before the Federal Court. Az: XI ZR 33/10
The Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) to the presiding judge in the trial Ulrich Wiechers was seen on Tuesday that the German bank's duty to have violated the same twice.
goes Essentially the question of whether the German bank knowingly with so-called swap agreements and medium-sized municipalities scooped! The total damage is estimated over one billion euros.
The legal representative of the Deutsche Bank, warns of consequences if verdict against Bank. A negative for the German banking industry for the ruling could have far-reaching consequences. " Then they solve a second financial crisis ," said Hall appealed to the court. ...... "There would be billions of claims on banks."

interesting is that it is almost always constitute own business of the Bank. For customers, this means -

at a loss of winner is also
his bank.
it take the banks involved in approving the purchase, damage to their customers through an incorrect or incomplete advice to get benefits to give? A conflict of interest that would have at the start of consultation in any case must be disclosed.
read



Source:
mirror
de / de
focus



The Federal Press Office Communication No. 22/2011 hearing: 8 February 2011 XI ZR 33/10 LG Hanau - Case of 4 August 2008 - 9 O 1501/07 OLG Frankfurt am Main - Case of 30 December 2009 - 23 U 175/08 (published in ZIP 2010, 921)

the applicant - a medium-sized enterprises - the respondent bank is limited to compensating the losses suffered Related to the completion of a CMS Spread Ladder swap contract claim.

In two consultations on the seventh January and 15 February 2005 recommended the defendant based on their forecast that the difference (spread) between the two-year interest rate and the ten-year interest rate is expected to expand significantly in future, the applicant's completion of a CMS Spread Ladder swap contract, the the parties on 16 Completing in February 2005. Thereafter, the defendant undertook to provide to the applicant of a reference amount of € 2,000,000 for the period of five years of semi-annual interest payments at a fixed interest rate of 3% pa, whereas the applicant in return undertook to pay the same dates from the related bill in the first year interest rate of 1.5% pa on the defendant and thereafter a floating rate equal to at least 0.0% and is dependent on the development of the "spreads "between the 10 - and 2-year swap funds rate on Euribor base (CMS10 - CMS 2) according to the formula calculated [Strike - - (CMS 2 CMS10)] The amount of the" strike rate of the previous period + 3. "was initially at 1.0% and fell over the contract term in stages starting at 0.85%, 0.70% and 0.55%. After the same day between the parties concluded framework agreement for financial futures, the netting of mutual interest payments agreed, that only the party that owed to the respective due dates, the higher amount, the difference between the amount owed was paid. A unilateral termination was without good cause exists for both parties first time after three years' duration and only against payment of compensation in the current market value of the contract. In consultation with the presentation materials used by the defendant had the applicant regarding the "risks" among other things, pointed out that - if the interest rate differential falls much below today's levels - the applicant - and got to pay higher interest payments than they receive. Because of her payable interest payment in the amount was not limited was their risk of loss is theoretically unlimited. At the time of conclusion of the CMS Spread Ladder swap contract had a negative market value of about 4% of the subscription amount (€ 80,000), after which the defendant did not point the applicant. The contract proved to be for the applicant as a losing proposition, because continuously from autumn 2005, the relevant for the calculation of its obligation to pay interest rate differential decreased. On 26 October 2006, she said the challenge of the CMS Spread Ladder swap contract on grounds of fraud, which was rejected by the defendant. Ultimately, the parties to the treaty dissolved on 26 January 2007 compared Payment of a compensation amount by the applicant in the amount of the current negative market value of € 566,850 on. The - taking into account interest received - mainly relies on repayment of € 541,074, including interest-related action, the applicant, inter alia, that the CMS Spread Ladder swap contract in their view was ineffective because he due to the imbalance of opportunities and risks against morality (§ 138 BGB). She is also the view of the defendant's chances of winning malicious deception (§ 123 BGB) and was advised also to be erroneous. The defendant had not sufficiently informed about the risks of investing and the recommendation was not their risk tolerance and investment objectives met. An advisory error, the applicant also provides that the defendant is not informed of the completion time of a negative market value of the contract.

The action in both courts below had no success. The Court of Appeal approved revision, the applicant further pursued her remedy sought. the case of the underlying CMS Spread Ladder swap contract and related interest rate swap contracts had the defendant bank from 2005 in addition to medium-sized enterprises - also recommended community facilities as an investment product - such as the local applicant. In this context, if it is taken in a number of other methods to offset losses to complete. The instance-of-court case law is mixed. With regard to numerous other judgments, some of which have also dismissed the action (OLG Bamberg, WM 2009, 1082 et seq; OLG Frankfurt am Main, WM 2009, 1563 et seq; OLG Celle, WM 2009, 2171 et seq; OLG Frankfurt, WM granted in 2010, 1790 et seq) and others have the action (OLG Stuttgart, WM 2010, 756 ff, OLG Stuttgart, WM 2010, 2169 et seq), is in the XI. Civil Division before, would appeal or revision pending. Source: BGH


delivery date: 22nd March 2011

--------------------------------------------- -------------------------

vzbv (Consumer Federation of Association) - Press release from 02/11/2011
------------------------------------ ---------------------------------- NEW PRESS RELEASE

------------ -------------------------------------------------- -------- 11.02.2011

missed opportunity for the investor protection

New law protects consumers against false insufficient Insufficient and faulty advice

which is now law, passed by the Bundestag on savings. The criticism of the Federal Consumer Association (vzbv) and draws particular attention to shortcomings in the supervision and with the product information sheet. The law is a sham. On advice, products and oversight, consumers can continue do not leave enough said CEO Gerd Billen. The federal government is still required to ensure effective supervision and control to the investor-oriented consulting fees. are

source

PRESS RELEASE dated 02/23/2011

The consequences of the crisis have not pulled quality drive consumer finances: vzbv ten-point plan presents The Consumer Federation (vzbv) has a blueprint for more consumer protection financial services provided. vzbv Board Gerd Billen demands more courage from the Federal Government finally institutionalized Consumer protection in the financial market should be national. While in Europe consumer protection in the financial market is a top priority since the beginning, lagging further behind Germany. On Thursday, Federal Consumer Minister Ilse Aigner attracts representatives from consumer protection and economic interim results of the called by their quality drive consumer finances. The aim of the initiative is to improve consumer protection in financial services and the quality of financial advice. Billen: If tackled our ten-point plan consistently, this goal is achieved.

source