Falk - interest funds: Who clings to the investors?

(openPR) - as one of the last closed funds the insolvent Falk - group from Munich it should help to adjust again financial deficits. The Falk - interest fund society of civil right (in the following Falk Zinsfonds) should be sufficient starting from the year 2003 to own closed real estate funds loans, because these from German major banks were not to be attained no more. These loans were also sufficient, however in accordance with the folder without werthaltige collateral. When in the year 2005 over the fortunes of the individual companies of the Falk group the insolvency procedures were opened, it was fast popular to define the last Falk funds as fraud models however there is group to today no conviction against a responsible person of the Falk.

Also the investors of the Falk - interest funds had to have and still the repayments their inserts to fear for. After many consultation with investors in our Augsburger Kanzlei turned out special consulting samples during the investment advice to the Falk Zinsfonds.

So far each investor reported that the portion was sold to him to the Falk Zinsfonds as alternative to the time deposits with the bank. These Fehlleistungen had their reason in the appropriate training courses for investment consultants starting from the spring 2003. The sales arguments presented there were taken over obviously without closer examination and continued to give to the investors. The true character of this investment could have been easily recognized on the basis the folder data.

At present at least two judgements of the higher regional court Munich exist on the occasion of submitted complaints of investors of the Falk Zinsfonds.

These legal proceedings exerted by the interest fund investors were completely different both regarding the complaint opponents and the complaint reason.

The positive judgement of our Kanzlei tightens a requirement for compensation for the investor because of incorrect investment advice. The positive judgement of the regional court Munich was again confirmed. Quintessential point of the judgement reasons it were that the plaintiff the high-risky interest fund portion without fund folder was recommended with the warranties it was as reliably as time deposits with the bank with safe 8% interest and at expiration of the minimum running time could one its money back-gets.

After the fund folder these data are however objectively wrong: The 8% interest were only planned, the funds of the Falk Zinsfonds should not at all by werthaltige land charge be besichert and at expiration of the minimum running time should not the insert sum be paid back to separate only the proportional portion of the respective remainder ability of the fund.

The higher regional court Munich (of 1.02.2007 Az.: ) Again the reliability of the witness and the right opinion of the output court regional court Munich I confirmed 29 U 4368/06 (of 21.07.2006 Az.: 20 O 5970/06).

In the other procedure of another law office the higher regional court Munich could (of 31.08.2006 Az.: 19 U 2676/06) due to the bad fact lecture of the complaining Anlegerin differently do not decide than the regional court Munich I (of 2.03.2006 Az.: ), The appointment rejected 30 O 17342/05.

This procedure was directed against a whole set of Galionsfiguren of the Falk group including the function carriers in the Falk Zinsfonds. Thereby the Falk concerned a folder action for liability in such a way specified, in which however more badly than quite the statement one justified, - interest fund folder was wrong or incomplete.

Were held word by word:

Based on these principles the alleged lack of folder reprimanded by the plaintiff are not present, how already the regional court implemented applicable and in detail:
....
9
b) Before this background also the view of the regional court applies that the statements concerning the plaintiff are by far not sufficiently substantiated regarding an alleged „inclination “and/or one „economically strained situation “and by „courses of a snow ball system “, in order to be accessible a hearing of evidence.
10
The refusal of a proof for an evidentiary fact is permissible if the proven facts are so inaccurately designated the fact that its importance cannot be judged, or if it determines into the garb of one set up statement dressed, but at random made, as it were „in the blue “set up, in other words, from air is seized and therefore as misuse of rights presents itself (BGH NJW 1991, 2707).
11
Here it is missing however already at the proof accessible „factual statements “by the plaintiff. Because with the statement one „inclination “and/or one „economically strained situation “and of „courses of a snow ball system “concerns at best it unsubstantiierte expressions of opinion, which are accessible to no proof already as such.

In other words, this complaint has might be never submitted. However with popular word cases no legal proceedings can be won.

The result of the preliminary investigation against Mr. Helmut W. Falk of the public prosecutor's office at the regional court Munich I Az.: 314 Js 31015/05 should be waiting.

In the meantime however the risk exists that claims for damages fall under the statute of limitations against the investment consultants.

Thieler attorney company ltd.
Attorney Jens Reime
At the Perl oh mountain 3
86150 Augsburg
Tel.: 0821/34999100
Fax.: 0821/34999101
E-Mail: reime@rechtsanwalt-thieler.de
Internet: www.rechtsanwalt-thieler.de

The Kanzlei is active for decades in the emphasis in the investment right. In the locations Munich, Augsburg, star mountain, because home, wolf advice living and Passau find competent consultation in the different right areas to investor. A special emphasis lies in the treatment of participation in closed real estate funds in the legal form of the GbR and kg.

Dieser Artikel wurde veröffentlicht auf
OpenPR - http://openpr.de/news/120719/Falk-Zinsfonds-Wer-haftet-den-Anlegern.html