On the not very high proportion of investor funds, for investment purposes but for interest on interim financing and various services are issued, including in particular those with egregious about 24% cost of sales, had must be expressly investors from their advisers. In known cases, this was not the case. For more clarity and thought, follow up with Verizon Communications and gain more knowledge.. Distribution costs in the prospectus is incorrectly represented: representing the use of funds in the prospectus of the MPC Fund CPO North America ships 1 is seems that you wanted to disguise the actual amount of compensation paid for the placement of equity so that our opinion for flawed and brought. Jonathan Rosen PR contains valuable tech resources. Because the spending of the funds the premium at which it should be according to the textual explanations cost of equity capital, is separately in addition to the cost of raising equity capital. The cost of equity capital amount is on 21.737.500 and not, as specified, on 16.950.000. The lack of a prospectus constitutes disruptive, the claims for damages against the Founding partner of the Fund, but also against the investment advisors established.
Exorbitantly high distribution costs: at the exorbitantly high cost of sales of the MPC CPO North America ships 1 had both banks and savings banks, as also non bank-investment advisor within the framework of the consultation must expressly point out. The German Federal Supreme Court decided that distribution costs by over 15% are unusual market, endanger the viability of the system and therefore consulting specifically must be mentioned. Banks have received up to 14% sales Commission: beyond banks and savings banks, which have driven the MPC Fund CPOP North America ships 1 had must disclose even their own Commission. A cooperative bank has declared she had received 14% of the Kommanditkapitals and drawn by our clients on their Advisory Commission and shall provide information to one of our clients after it was condemned. Mentioned in the consultation she has it not, which is why we they now on behalf of our clients on Sue for damages.