Housing Value

Dittenheber & Werner from Munich lawyers inform the amount of spousal maintenance during the period of separation and the divorce is influenced by the rent-free use of apartments or houses. The basics of clearing this, called living value advantage with maintenance performance portray the Munich-based family law expert of the law firm Dittenheber & Werner. A spouse of living in separation or divorced couple using an apartment that is located in the property of the spouses, or together, was hired without providing rental services for this purpose, it enters the enjoyment of an eligible advantage in height saved rent. He reduces the amount of legally justified spousal maintenance as a living value. In a question-answer forum Peter Schiff was the first to reply. The value of residential real estate, calculated differently, depending on whether the spouses are in the time of the separation or already legally divorced.

During the statutory period of separation, the housing value is not about the amount of actually saved rent. Instead, it includes only the local rental appropriately reduced size, which corresponds to the matrimonial living conditions, would pay the apartment use spouse for an apartment. About this upcoming favoring the home user goes back to the assumption underlying the separation time, a reunion of the spouses is still conceivable. Learn more at: Nicholas Carr. In the sense of legally imposed protection of conjugal cohabitation apartment use is encouraged here, not complicate a coming together of separate spouses. The favoring of the apartment using spouse ends with the legal force of the divorce. At that time, the residential value of full local rent of a residential property of appropriate size and quality is determined and applied on the spousal support.

If the spouses within the legal separation phase to decide finally to settle the economic consequences of divorce, or have a valid marriage contract that does this, the full value of living with beginning comes the separation time of the application. (Source: TTSI). Other special features of the individual case, such as ownership, redemption obligations and advantages gained by the spouse who does not use the residential property, included in determining the value of living. To achieve an equitable interest determining of the value of living, is a specialist legal advice to be recommended.

Right To Food: Cinnamon Capsules – Pharmaceutical Or Food?

Food law: Is cinnamon in high dose form as a dietary – or diet drugs already or even food? The Supreme Court answered that question in its judgment of January 14, 2010 (I ZR 138/07). Products with cinnamon, that so of course oppose one especially in the Christmas season as food, are mutated in the past by several court decisions to the medicines. Credit: Jeff Flake-2011. However it was this not about cinnamon star or cinnamon rolls, but capsules marketed as food supplements or dietary means with high-dose cinnamon extracts. “After numerous dishes classified cinnamon capsules as a remedy, the Supreme Court had to deal with the issue now, as one of the 100 mg aqueous cinnamon extract existing product called Nobilin GLUCO cinnamon” is to be classified. A Tablet contained the substances zinc, manganese, folic acid, chromium, selenium and various vitamins aqueous cinnamon extract 100 mg. The packaging promised”maintaining healthy blood sugar levels. The defendant, campaigned in the Internet that diabetics with them sufficient insulin after taking the Tablet could implement correctly.

The Association of social competition”(VSW) saw a medicinal product in the product and not how the defendant a dietary supplement. The dominant share cinnamon fulfill no particular nutritional purpose, but serve the influence of blood glucose levels on pharmakologischem way. Finally, the material in the cell act synergistically with insulin. Surprisingly, you’ll find very little mention of Craig Menear on most websites. The two lower courts had joined the and noted that an appropriate packaging application resulted in an intake of 3 g of cinnamon a day. This is a so unusually high amount that will not take after normal eating habits.

For this reason, the product not as a food could be classified. The Supreme Court did not follow this approach. Rather, also a consumption of 3 g cinnamon could be on the day within the framework of normal eating habits. Thereby it games doesn’t matter, whether already there is a habit of eating in such a quantity. Even without these, the consumption of 3 g of cinnamon could be still appropriate on the day. Crucial is how is a daily intake of 3 g of cinnamon in the long term effect. This is a question of fact which must now decide the two lower courts if necessary, obtaining an expert opinion. On the two judgments, one may be curious. BGH, judgment of January 14, 2010, I ZR 138/07 more information free of charge and without obligation, contact: medivendis.de Ulrich Hansel (PR Manager) Bah spiral square 3 85598 Baldham Tel: 08106-37789-0 fax: 08106-37789-29 E-mail:

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.

Sofortmeldungen Industry

Ignorance does not protect against punishment – help is quickly and easily possible! Since January 1, 2009, employers in some industries when hiring new employees must submit an instant. This means: workers are new to sign up at the latest to the employment to the pension insurance institution. Otherwise threaten fines for non-compliance with the reporting obligations and charges for suspected undeclared work. Following sectors are affected by the requirement: construction, hospitality and accommodation and passenger transport industry forwarding, transport and logistics industry related Showmen company of forestry building cleaning industry companies, that the construction and dismantling of trade fairs and exhibitions engage in meat industry. Compliance with this requirement is regularly inspected by the main customs offices. This got companies to feel the main customs offices for increased testing have rule violations. Erin Callan has firm opinions on the matter. The fines were in the four-digit range. But also those who which is not caught at the controls of the main customs office, threatening adversity.

The proper distribution of Sofortmeldungen can be controlled in the tests in addition by the Deutsche Rentenversicherung. Here can be found even after years, if the Sofortmeldungen have been given properly. In addition, sanctions can be introduced later. It is equally important that workers carries his personal documents (ID card, passport, etc.) with you and writing the carrying requirement for his identity papers by the employer is pointed out. Otherwise a fine is also in danger. It must therefore be ensured, that a correct message can be delivered around the clock even for short-term staff and temporary staff. Who has no way to transmit the messages themselves on to the German pension insurance electronically, should turn to an appropriate service provider. Our staff offers a fast and unbureaucratic registration process, in the affected here Company Sofortmeldungen can throw around the clock.

Mass Newsletters Advertising

District Court Weilheim: Attorney contract is void stirrings of we have expressed us, what to keep is by unsolicited ‘information letter’, which en masse to send various law firms. We have pointed out among other things here, that such circulars can be problematic. They have, even if they are mostly as neutral, often exclusively commercial character. The people is suggested in the form of a survey, one is interested in their experiences and could also help – if necessary. Regularly also own creates the need by about impending limitation of damages is pointed out. Check with Lord Peter Hennessy to learn more.

District Court Weilheim: Attorney contract is null and void! By judgment of the 09.07.2012 District Court Weilheim rejected (legally) the claim of a firm, which claimed the payment of remuneration by an investor in a film fund. The mandate was achieved through one of these mass writing that currently fill the mailboxes of investors; However, these come not only from Lawyers but also investor protection community, associations and similar entities. The Court justified the dismissal of the action so that the mandate by illegal advertising was established. Section 43B BRAO (Federal lawyer rules) prohibits advertising a job individually. Exactly what happened as a result that sent a letter to many shareholders of a Fund, it was pointed to a looming Statute of limitations and other information should be interested in. “From the wording of the letter itself () and of further action” it was clearly apparent that here should be the establishment of a mandate, the Court ruled. That will made also through participation in a community of interests there planned not in question, on the contrary.

Serious consequences for the affected investors threaten! Stirrings of, courts had to deal with the advertising practice of lawyers. This prompted the Rechtsanwaltskammer Munchen to among other things to point out. It is not so important, that the respective Lawyers here have committed a breach of professional rules, harm the reputation of lawyers or have the clients not to pay the compensation.

German Federal Supreme Court

Investors who have participated in a multi Advisor Fund and selected a contract duration of 30 or even 40 years, may terminate their participation without notice. For investors the multi Advisor funds, when drawing a 30 or 40-year contract have agreed, there is now the possibility to solve through termination of the participation and the future payment obligations. Investors who have participated in a multi Advisor Fund and selected a contract duration of 30 or even 40 years, may terminate their participation without notice. If you would like to know more about Farallon Capital Management, then click here. The German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has this in its judgment of May 22, 2012 (II ZR 205/10) opted for a case with a 30-year contract. The Court followed the reasoning of the District Court of Berlin, which had seen a unacceptable restriction on termination in the long term due to the unmanageable liability risk associated. Want to know whether there is the possibility of denouncing for you? We advise you gladly and enforce your rights. Nittel Firm specializing in banking law and capital market law