“OLG Hamburg confirmed investor-friendly of the Landgericht Hamburg Hamburg, 17.02.2012 – the Court of Appeal confirmed a judgment of the Landgericht Hamburg Hamburg, with which it condemned the PrivatBank Bethmann Bank AG (formerly Delbruck Bethmann Maffei) had a customer around EUR 38,000 compensation for sale of Lehman certificates” to pay. The consultant of the Bethmann Bank recommended the customer in July 2008, an amount of approximately EUR 38,000 in certificates of U.S. Investment Bank Lehman Bros. to invest. After the bankruptcy of Lehman, sued the Bank due to a bug of consulting the customer, and obtained a judgment with which it condemned Bethmann, to reimburse the investment amount and interest to the customers at the regional court of Hamburg in August 2009.
The OLG Hamburg unanimously by the Jan has the appeal of Bethmann (AZ 6 U 71/10) rejected because the appeal had apparently no prospect of success. Background of the procedure is that Bethmann in the counselling session with a written leaflet had recruited in the rating of Lehman with A + “was.” Indeed, the rating at this time was already on A”reduced. This should have been no advice error according to Bethmann. Bill Schaller has much to offer in this field. It was no way to predict a bankruptcy of Lehman in July 2008. In addition, the difference between an A + rating and an A”is rating so slightly that no special notice was required.
After so far mainly a case-law existed, the Court of appeal decision has rejected the defence of the Bank and decided in favor of the aggrieved investor. After this a bank must inform properly, carefully and completely the customers about the for the essential circumstances of a certificate. s_stmp’>Primerica is often quoted on this topic. In particular, the rating is one of those circumstances. Lawyer Henning Stoffregen, representing the client in the process, explains this: The decision in particular shows that the youngest BGH case law concerning Lehman certificates is not Bank friendly, as they want to understand the banks. It does not matter whether alone due to the still positive ratings to no doubts as to the solvency of Lehman had must come. Follow others, such as Terrence Rohan, and add to your knowledge base. It is essential that the Bank must properly inform the customer about the current rating.” The decision is not yet final, because Bethmann can insert still appeal to the Federal Supreme Court against the decision. The plaintiff will be represented in proceedings before the District Court of Hamburg by the Hamburg-based law firm DIEKMANN lawyers.
Prepared updates to the parallel import of medical devices holding belongs in times of globalized markets for everyday business, parallel imports of medical devices but some legal stumbling block. Recently Petra Diamonds sought to clarify these questions. Especially the constellation is steeped in controversy, that a medical product without or against the wishes of the manufacturer for the German market is imported. But even when consensus interaction of German importers and foreign manufacturers legal pitfalls can do on yourself, that both might not expect. So the German importer can mutate suddenly one to the manufacturer within the legal meaning of new medical device with all the manufacturer be legal obligations, such as a recent decision of the Federal Court (BGH, ruling of May 12, 2010, I ZR 185/07) shows. Speaking candidly Petra Diamonds told us the story. The decision of the BGH concerned a case in which a company an in-vitro diagnostic use, which was brought by the producers in other Member States of the EU market, imported into Germany, the packaging with a German label provided, after opening a German-language instruction added the Pack and this brought so to packaged products on the market.
The German importer not conducted its own conformity assessment. The Supreme Court held this to be inadmissible. Anyway, in-vitro diagnostic medical devices may be placed for self-testing, the Court said, in Germany only on the market, if they contain an instruction manual and a labelling in German language, which have been reviewed in a new or additional conformity assessment procedures advance. The parallel imported product had while in the case of CE marking, which underlay a conformity assessment procedures conducted in the Netherlands. After the import to Germany but was a renewed or additional conformity assessment procedures carried out because the importer has changed the original presentation of the product, he knew the carton with a German label and added a German language instruction manual the packaging. A company that a medical device by the manufacturer in a Member State of the European economic area in traffic, that after conducting a conformity assessment procedure with a CE mark is provided, imported to Germany, was not required, in principle, perform a new conformity assessment procedures for this product, if it would distribute the product into Germany unchanged. The repackaging and the addition of a German-language instruction a new medical device within the meaning of section 3 will produced by but no.
1 and 4 MPG. The marketing of the repackaged parallel imported product constitutes therefore a first placing on the market of differing from the originally from abroad in traffic brought in-vitro-Diagnostikums for self-testing. Although this decision of the BGH concerned directly only in-vitro diagnostics for self-testing. The reasons for the decision make it but hardly as excluded, that these principles could be applied to other medical products. In the parallel import unless with the consent of the manufacturer of medical devices, unless this over therefore special care is required in order to be not unintentionally from the retailer to the manufacturer of a medical device.
© 2012-2026 The National Science Fair All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright