*by Dr. Johannes Fiala, Lawyer (Munich), Mediator (Univ.), MBA Financial Services (Univ.Wales), MM (Univ.), Certified Financial and Investment Advisor (A.F.A.), Lecturer for Civil and Insurance Law (BA Heidenheim, Univ. of Cooperative Education), Banker (fiala4instalive.instawp.xyz)
The Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed its constant iurisdiction by judgement of 14.06.2007, according to which everyone takes the “influence on the society with the initiation of a project”, like an initiator clings – here for the film fund ViF Babelsberger film production GmbH & Co. third kg the VIF medium conceptions GmbH and VIF film production GmbH responsible for the folder issue. This states the Munich attorney Dr. Johannes Fiala (fiala4instalive.instawp.xyz) in its judgement discussion, which it sent us with its judgement guidance sentence for publication. Excerpt from the judgment: Liability of initiators and backers – even if they do not appear It does not matter whether these person(s) have appeared externally. The BGH cites the following persons as examples: Managing director, majority shareholder, general agent, head of a planning association. It is not the “corporate structure” that is decisive, but the influence similar to that of an initiator in a corresponding key function. In the case in question, the subsidiary of a major bank had been sued because it had been regarded by an investor as the “(co-)initiator and backer responsible for the prospectus”: the BGH made it clear that “mere participation” in the issuing or drafting of the prospectus is just as insufficient for this as influence only in certain areas…. Complete judgement discussion (source: Gerlach/DIREKTER ANLEGERSCHUTZ 02/11/07 – link see please pdf file)
(experten.de (23.11.2007))
Courtesy of www.experten.de.