In the investment fraud case Alpina-Fonds/Icon-Gruppe, Oberhaching, the district court Munich I has a intermediate investment company for breach of duty of disclosure ordered to pay damages (Judgement of 14 February 2011, file number 35 O 25839/09). According to the court would have the damaged Alpina investors to the relevant criminal history of the icon initiators Klaus-Jürgen Pitter-Kilfitt and Anouschka Wittke must be noted in 2002 by the Munich District Court for the illegal banking transactions (criminal offense under § 54 KWG) to several months of imprisonment sentenced had been.
The district court justified that the decision as follows:
"An investment intermediaries has all the potential information that may have considerable importance for its entry decision, sincere and careful to give particular completely. This duty is the defendant to 3) (acting through their representatives, to complain to 4)) do not comply.
The defendant has to 4) the plaintiff against the sentences against the defendants to 1) and 2) (Note: Pitter-Kilfitt and Wittke not) mentioned that he, as he claims, not then known.
The criminal conviction of the manager of the management company and the manager, the trustee for a - as here - the relevant fact that is appropriate to restore confidence in the reliability of the system as a whole, but to shake the confidence in the proper performance of management duties and obligations under the trust agreement is, in the opinion of the Court a notice that are of major importance a investment decision. The mediator can not withdraw to the position that the crime had nothing to do with the disputed asset, but in connection with a predecessor company were, investors were not the actions harmed directly, and therefore the information for the Alpina 5 Investment meaningless was. Exactly this Assessment, the agent just left to the prospective investors, after having first set all relevant information.
Irrelevant is whether the defendant is to 4) known as a matter of fact, the judgments. It would certainly be the duty of defendant to 3 have been) to inform itself and the active agent, especially since the trial lasted since April 2000 and searches were carried out. The defendant 3) itself does not deny that it was aware of the criminal judgments. Ultimately, that does not work because the defendant to 3) the judgments in any case should have known.
In highly speculative investments of agents according to the prevailing case law is already held, verify the integrity of the initiators (OLG Köln, Judgement of 18.06.1999, Az 3 U 106/98). Given the enormous returns in spite of minimal house services to the applicant with plant K 24 were forecast, is assumed to have the participation of the intermediary also shown to be highly speculative needs, so that it the increased scrutiny requirements relating to the defendant to 1) and 2 met).
If the defendant to 4) personally said that he had to rely solely on the information in the "Procon" and not even more informed, so it already shows that the manager of the defendant to 3) does not fully complied with the is. "
The decision of the Court of Munich I is not yet final.
0 comments:
Post a Comment