Also the fact that CMI across, cross-pool reserves operates one managed by different pools that are allocated to different insurance contracts, investors were not informed about regularly. The BGH considers aufklarungspflichtig also this circumstance. The investors about the fact that the return earned with his one-time payment can be used also to ensure warranty claims the other pool investors was not clarified this is a duty of disclosure violation by CMI. As a result, are also investors of “smart” model compensation claims against CMI to. They are to provide, as they would not join the model.
Risk limitation: the claims of the investor in connection with incorrect advice in advance of participation at “smart” are the absolute Statute of limitations of 10 years. The Statute of limitations runs day and begins with the date of last consultation prior to the drawing of the model. Example: Consulting August 15, 2002 – prescription August 15, 2012. After the expiry of the limitation period, claims for damages can no longer be enforced. 2.
Fulfilment of the obligations arising from the “withdrawal”plan investors of “Smart In” pension model “Wealthmaster Noble” completed at CMI a life insurance contract, which in the insurance policy the amount named quarterly payments for a certain period laid down. CMI denies to be obliged to carry out of regular payments without reduction of shares. According to the insurer, he had only to make long payouts, as well as sufficient shares of the policyholder on the contract underlying the “pool” are available. These shares are exhausted, CMI must make no further payments. The Supreme Court has clearly the page of CMI’s customers and also by the lawyers of Nittel Firm specializing in banking law and capital market law confirmed represented legal opinion in its entirety.