Dutch Lehman Brothers Treasury

Cape lawyers Firm specializing in investor protection and capital market law reports Munich, September 2011; Long investors had waited on judgments of the Federal Court on the subject of Lehman collapse. At 27.09.2011, the German Federal Supreme Court decided certificates by the Hamburger Sparkasse now in two proceedings AZ XI ZR 178/10 and XI ZR 182/10 over complaints from investors that the Lehman (short: HASPA) were conveyed. The victims hoped for clarity on an inadequate consultation on the part of the Bank and possible enforceable claims against them. At certain points, the BGH has now created this clarity. Even if the Federal Supreme Court not brought out the comprehensive genre and not condemned the Bank that to educate about so-called profit stomach is, so the judgment for investors in other respects is still pleasing. “In detail: as previously reported, dealt with in decisions discussions two customers of the HASPA, which respectively EUR 10,000.00 in a Lehman Bull express guarantee bond” and a protect express Invested in bond”. It is bearer of the Dutch Lehman Brothers Treasury co.

B.V.., whose repayment guarantees through the U.S. American Lehman Brothers holding Inc. included. Both are in bankruptcy. In the aftermath of the so-called kick back, jurisprudence of the Federal Court, according to which the Bank about Commission payments to enlighten on the sale of securities because it has a conflict of interest, saying that she had received no Commission, but it involves a so-called fixed price business defended the HASPA.

In such a business is only a profit damage, over which the Bank must not enlighten. This has confirmed the Federal Court now in these decisions and considers the banks is followed. So it retains the previous practice, that a faulty advice of the investor in the case must be demonstrated in concrete terms. Here the Federal Court in these decisions clarifies expressly that abstract issuer risk, i.e. the risk of a total loss to clarify when a bearer bonds is. This got many instance courts out of sight. This focus will be in the future lay. To distinguish is the Bank’s duty of disclosure, whether she had to indicate in the specific case of Lehmann a possible bust of it. This question judgments was not decided in the Federal Supreme Court and is thus still an open issue. Clarified the Federal Supreme Court has again that investors adequately about the operation of the product must be elucidated. This lack often, because it is in particular certificates to highly complex securities, how the consultants had not even understood in many cases. Also be according to BGH also address that a non deposit-secured product like the Lehman certificates not likely recommended a visible security-oriented investors. Then, an investor who here feels damaged by his bank, the advice of a lawyer specialising in banking law will have to look in the future. Because of a possible limitation of the claims should be done basically as soon as possible. This applies to investors of any securities, especially when one does not understand how of his investment as an investor in the consultation.

Tags: ,

Comments are closed.