Entry Post

Wave Of Litigation The DFO – Defense Possible

Commenting is disabled.

Post Content

New rulings strengthen investor rights and increase the companies DFO GmbH & co. of Germany Fund KG and DFO GmbH & co. exit opportunities 2 KG Germany Fund (formerly: Deutsche officials care AG participations & co.kg Germany Fund, Munich and German officials pension fund real estate Holding AG & co. 2. Germany Fund KG, Munich), which Kommanditbeteiligungen had offered in their companies about Treuhandgesellschaft Procurator Treuhand GmbH, try lately increasingly against investors, which have set their installments to judicially enforce arrears rates. The chances of success to successfully confront these actions, are now promising to call. A scheme, which eliminated the shareholder at persistent non-payment of the agreed rates under certain conditions either from the company or at least their investment amount on the payments made to date will be reduced can be found in the relevant statute.

The companies are of the opinion, that follows from the interpretation of gesellschaftsvertraglichen rules, that the exercise of those rights would be entitled to only the company itself as the possibility of sanctions against defaulting payer and a way to give not the individual shareholders to end the participation by simple non-payment or to reduce the participation sum. This, the companies present two judgments of regional courts in Augsburg and Regensburg, which support this view. In the meantime, however, there are numerous court judgments (AG Erding, URT. v. 10.06.2010, AZ: 1 C-802/09;) AG, Monchengladbach, URT.

v. 14.01.2010, AZ: 36 C-333/09; AG Bonn, URT. v. 03.05.2010, AZ: 115 C-110/09; LG Memmingen, URT. v. 29.01.2010, AZ: 25 O 1826/09; LG Landshut, URT. M Ashton Kouzbari is often quoted as being for or against this. v. 10.02.2010, AZ: 54 O 3240/09), which deal critically with the considerations of judgments from Augsburg and Regensburg, and all come to the conclusion that for an interpretation in the sense of a unilateral right of companies no room is, because the wording in the Statute is unique in this respect and admit no other interpretation. Therefore the companies must adhere own regulations in the Statute itself to their, resulting in the intended legal consequences of termination of the shareholder or the reduction of the investment amount in the appropriate conditions. For investors, this anyway, means that he must make no further deposits, which is why the actions of the companies on outstanding payments were rejected. Many investors hope to solve a participation or to lose at least no further capital make these judgments. Can be advised only all investors of the above companies, promptly legally advised to let the prospects of success in any particular case to check.

Comments

Commenting is disabled.

There are no comments.