Also these revenues as loans were granted this would have to be repaid to the company, if the loan agreements are effective. In numerous media by various investors lawyers decisions II praising and civil Senate of the BGH from March 12, 2013, in which the claims of two funds of the emission House of Dr. Peters (yield Fund 38 DS and DS of return fund 39) on repayment of distributions, supposedly granted as loans to investors, as a major breakthrough. Wrongly, as you know, when you present was as a lawyer Mathias Nittel at the oral proceedings. Because the decisions, whose written reasoning not even exist, don’t let Fund, Hansa for all funds of Dr. Peters, also not for Lloyd fiduciary and other underwriters with some of the similar rules generalize. Background is that it comes the appropriate clauses in the Statute, in which that it is when the distributions to loan to act, are completely differently formulated.
To determine whether these clauses actually and unambiguously a loan provision was taken, this must be separately designed for each Fund. And it arrives there in particular, looks like the concrete formulation. The Chairman of the Senate of the Federal Supreme Court has represented very different starting points for the design in the negotiation. As soon as the judgments, it should be possible to carry out a corresponding interpretation in regard to other funds on the basis of these criteria. This decision for investors in most cases brings little in economic terms.
The situation assuming that the funds have produced regularly no profits, is so, that the investors in the case anyway must repay received distributions of the insolvency of the Fund to the insolvency administrator. The only difference is that the timing of payment: now to the company or after the bankruptcy of the insolvency administrator. Something else is it, if some years actually balance sheet profits were generated. Also these revenues as loans were granted this would have to be repaid to the company, if the loan agreements are effective. Only the withdrawals not made gains would have to be repaid to the insolvency administrator. In these cases, the decision of the BGH is way possible of importance. Many renovation or restructuring concepts for ship funds, which were decided in the years 2009-2012 are worn not by a real going-concern Outlook. Because if and when the Charter rates return to an adequate level and can that be whether and when the ship funds again profitable, is still in the stars. If the funds get new liquidity, benefit the issuing houses with the them related trusts about the fiduciary compensation, mostly near the issuing houses standing shipowners shipowners compensation and the banks, the additional interest receive. This may have been a major driving force for the “remedial” efforts of the past. This includes also the recovery of supposedly or actually loan wise granted distributions, which have helped to enhance the liquidity of the funds and to an extension of the death. Nittel Firm specializing in banking and capital market law your contact person Mathias Nittel, lawyer specializing in banking law and capital market lawComments closed