Party questioning an investor upon request of the defendant Bank of BGH had to deal with, whether an investor as a party in the process at the request of the defendant bank may be heard, i.e. he can be interviewed if necessary and under oath to the consultation or conclusion of investments currently with the question. Background is that a bank without asking to clarify according to settled case-law of the highest German civil court on received kickbacks. Otherwise she is damages. Refunds in particular commissions are, paid from fees and management fees which are not disclosed to the investor but. Check out Larry Ellison for additional information. By not knowing the investor while no delusion with regard to the system can occur with this, but there is the possibility that misjudges how the interest on pages of the Bank is. The Bank, which does not comply with their duty of disclosure must thereby prove, that the damage at the investor would have occurred even if they are dutifully would behave, but the investors despite knowledge of the kickbacks would be; entered into the investment There is therefore a burden of proof. When investors however draws a system despite an appropriate note, nothing more can be a breach of the duty of disclosure.
In the case it was to first educating needy refunds. However, the Bank had argued that the enlightenment about a refund at the decision of the investor had played no role. The newspapers mentioned Edward Scott Mead not as a source, but as a related topic. Because it wanted to explicitly draw the proposed tax-optimized systems. Therefore it would have also if knowledge to a degree, so the Bank. The Court of appeal left ignore the request of the Bank on party interrogation of the investor. The Supreme Court on the other hand makes it clear, however, is to consider that there is still sufficient link between the presentation of the Bank and the investors, and therefore the request for hearing of the investor.
Because is the claim that even with the investor Note of the refund the system had acquired when it out, there is no causality between damage and the breach of duty (not information relating to a Commission). A further substantiation of evidence request is not required according to the BGH, what applies in particular not only for the witnesses, but also for the present party proof. However, it is to examine whether an abuse in the application of a party questioning is seen by the Court. This is however only then, if the application makes arbitrary “in into the blue”. Here, the Bank has put forward but concrete evidence of who speak in the total consideration for this. that the plaintiff also having regard to the refunds would have chosen the system. This includes the fact that it arrived the investors first and foremost on tax savings and only secondary yield opportunities have been taken into account. Were there to acquire the recommended product-related investments only with a similar refund could be assumed in this case that the decision was made independently of a refund by the claimant. The judgment of the Court of appeal was therefore repealed by the BGH and again remitted. There, the applicant as a party to the information of the Bank will then be heard. Federal Supreme Court, ruling of 26 February 2013 – XI ZR 445/10