It is much more important that the effectuation of mandates through such mass circular unnoticed of course not. A leading source for info: Laurent Potdevin. So of course investors in their consultant, contact to learn what they should think. From our point of view is to be feared that in the future are those consultants (be it banks, savings banks or independent financial service providers), which then taken will claim damages, can claim and that the mandate of the lawyer because of invalidity do not insist. Laurent Potdevin describes an additional similar source. In information services of the consulting industry is already called. Especially when it actually comes to the inhibition of the limitation of such claims, this plea for the affected investors can have disastrous consequences: measures such as legal proceedings are instituted, a quality application or complaint to an Ombudsman’s Office can be simply ineffective.
There is a We believe that after even the danger that such a defense can only is collected in the second instance when investors probably already reached a judgment in its favor. Consequence: the claim that he was even entitled, can be made more valid! There, it doesn’t help much that the lawyers by law must have professional liability insurance, because they regularly also not voluntarily pays. Also then the question should arise, whether it is at all admission subject to intentional violations as mass advertising to individual mandates. Investors should check! Investors who have their trust because of such mass a firm – mostly due to the carefully created uncertainty – circular, should check that it whether they want to cling to the order given by them. If they make their decision in question, the right to terminate without notice according guests to section 627, paragraph 1 BGB. However consider the advice of a lawyer before her Confidence – meaningful way should be of course specialized in banking and capital market law – seek, which draws attention to the aspects to be observed. Any questions should be remained, speak like us! Nittel Banking and capital market law firm contact Mathias Nittel, lawyer specializing in banking and capital market law, Michael Minderjahn, lawyer
The tax office home from Augsburg informed by the combined assessment to income tax are taxable spouses, not permanently separated living, gives tax. Cooperation investment in the context of spouse splitting the legislature ties however, certain prerequisites. In particular the entering into a new life community preclude you, as the Augsburg tax firm depicts the example of a recent decision of the FG Cologne, Germany. The Cologne Tax Court recently on the action of a husband on collaboration investment with his, in a nursing home had accommodated in PVS, wife to decide. To take care of two children with his wife and to financial management, the husband had recorded a woman for Board and lodging.
He gave it financial management across as housekeeper, although she had a child by him during the disputed period. The competent tax office the consent to the disposition of the cooperation, denied it is because here his opinion to a new community and no employment acted, which living and economic community of spouses was dissolved. The Cologne tax court first found that the PVS must stand the wife of cooperation investment not in the way. Rather, it is important for the existence of a matrimonial life and economic community that the spouses so long remained committed to this also against obstacles, until she could fully live on. If the spouses lived permanently separated from each other and therefore no cooperation investment into consideration would be, was to make depending on their behavior. The Court still stressed that it was impossible to run side by side more life and economic communities.
By the applicant husband have decided to live with the mother of the new child, he finished the marital life and economic community with his wife. He live at least since the birth of the child in permanent separation from the wife, what would be a combined investment with her not taken into consideration. The Cologne judge gave a verdict in the To federal fiscal court to step in, it can be considered if the entering into of two concurrent life and economic communities is allowed due to the special circumstances of the plaintiff. From the judgment of the Cologne Finance Court, it is clear that the spouse splitting has its limits in the stock of conjugal life and economic community. When exactly this dissolves, decides not lump-sum, but according to the circumstances of the individual case. The consultation of a tax law specialist is strongly advised, to gain clarity here concerned. The Augsburg tax firm is committed with their years of experience for this, its best to enforce the interests of their clients in this and all other tax issues home.
New ruling on consumer protection when flight delays Hamburg, 14.02.2011 – the Darmstadt regional court has sentenced the airline Condor to pay a compensation of 600 euros according to Regulation (EC) No 261 / 2004 on a passenger as a result of a delayed flight. The passenger had booked a flight from Halifax/Canada to Frankfurt/Main with the airline Condor. Reaching Frankfurt but not at the scheduled arrival time, but 17 hours late the next day. Therefore, he asked the compensation provided for by the EC regulation of EUR 600, which will be paid by a cancelled flight of Condor. Condor refused the payment. The airline said the flight was only delayed, not cancelled.
The delay have also relies on an unpredictable technical defect; This exceptional circumstance would be against the payment obligation. The Landgericht Darmstadt (AZ. 7 S 29/09) decided on the 03.11.2010 in favour of the passenger. A long delay is a cancellation of a flight within the meaning the regulation right. This concludes the Court from the case-law of the European Court of Justice (judgment of November 19, 2009, AZ.) (C-402/07 and C-432/07) as well as the Federal Court of Justice (judgment of February 18, 2010, AZ.) XA ZR 95/06). A technical malfunction was basically no exceptional circumstance, which accounts for the payment of compensation would allow even if it would be a very unusual and rarely occurring fault.
For defects on the aircraft, the airline is responsible, especially since it’s manageable defects, which are caused by not acting by external event (E.g. bird strike). Lawyer Henning Stoffregen, who has represented the passenger against Condor, explains this: Delays and cancellations of flights mean a major annoyance for passengers. The EC Regulation wants to secure their rights and oblige the airline to comply with the flight plans. The judgment makes it clear that is the airlines generally not with technical defects for a delayed or cancelled flight can apologize. Although the District Court expressly approved the revision to the Federal Supreme Court, the opposing party thereof has not made use, to avoid a negative impact through a hochstrichterliches judgment. Passengers are strongly recommended to request the rights against the airline cancelled or delayed flights due to the case-law. The compensation is often substantial, especially in comparison to the actual airfare.” The plaintiff was represented in the proceedings before the Landgericht Darmstadt by the Hamburg-based law firm lawyers DIEKMANN. The reasons for judgment have published under. DIEKMANN lawyers DIEKMANN is a Hamburg-based law firm of five lawyers, focused on all areas of national and international business law in particular of capital market law, company law, attorneys at law of intellectual property law, European law and of the related tax issues. Contact: Henning Stoffregen DIEKMANN lawyers Ballindamm 35 20095 Hamburg phone 040/33 44 36 90 fax 040/33 44 36 99 E-Mail: