Obbligazioni valute high yield Bond Scholz Anleihe 2017 8,50% Euro AT0000A0U9J2 (1 Viewer)

[gionmorg]

Buongiorno se a qualcuno può essere utile, allego file della causa depositata dallo studio legale contro Scholz.

Sarebbe il caso che oscurassi i nomi o stampassi solo le pagine contenenti il ricorso.

 

[nettuno]

ok

 

[calamita]

Avete ricevuto in questi giorni e-mail da studio Schirp?

 

[seneca]

Avete ricevuto in questi giorni e-mail da studio Schirp?

mi sembra di capire che chiedono ancora soldi per continuare


Dear Madam, dear Sir,



unfortunately, we have to inform you that the district court (Landgericht) in Ellwangen has dismissed our suit against father and son Scholz and the Scholz company. We enclose the judgment for you. (We only have it in German language since the court does not provide translations).



We hold the judgment to be incorrect (discussed below, section nr. 1). We can appeal against this judgment if we want to (discussed below, section nr. 2). We will make further information available to you and ask you to kindly send us back the answer sheet which we add to this mail (discussed below, section nr. 3).



1.) The Ellwangen judgment is incorrect



As per our analysis, the Ellwangen court has made several mistakes that open the judgment up for appeal.



Even a first look shows that while the court has at great length reproduced the views brought forward by the opposing parties, it has left very little room for its own reasoning. And indeed, the court´s own reasoning appears to be weak and open for attack.



The court tries to argue that there is no causal relationship between misrepresentations in the bond prospectus and the damage the investors have incurred (pp. 33 and following of the judgment). This argument does not hold up to closer scrutiny, and it is highly surprising since the court has never indicated that it might see a problem there. We feel confident that a court of appeal would judge this question differently.



Besides that, the court tries to argue that the prospectus was not faulty at all (pp. 36 and following of the judgment). This line of argument does not convince us either. The court briefly discusses every argument we have brought forward, but does not really look into them and thereby misses the essence of our argumentation.



Looking at

 

[calamita]

mi sembra di capire che chiedono ancora soldi per continuare


Dear Madam, dear Sir,



unfortunately, we have to inform you that the district court (Landgericht) in Ellwangen has dismissed our suit against father and son Scholz and the Scholz company. We enclose the judgment for you. (We only have it in German language since the court does not provide translations).



We hold the judgment to be incorrect (discussed below, section nr. 1). We can appeal against this judgment if we want to (discussed below, section nr. 2). We will make further information available to you and ask you to kindly send us back the answer sheet which we add to this mail (discussed below, section nr. 3).



1.) The Ellwangen judgment is incorrect



As per our analysis, the Ellwangen court has made several mistakes that open the judgment up for appeal.



Even a first look shows that while the court has at great length reproduced the views brought forward by the opposing parties, it has left very little room for its own reasoning. And indeed, the court´s own reasoning appears to be weak and open for attack.



The court tries to argue that there is no causal relationship between misrepresentations in the bond prospectus and the damage the investors have incurred (pp. 33 and following of the judgment). This argument does not hold up to closer scrutiny, and it is highly surprising since the court has never indicated that it might see a problem there. We feel confident that a court of appeal would judge this question differently.



Besides that, the court tries to argue that the prospectus was not faulty at all (pp. 36 and following of the judgment). This line of argument does not convince us either. The court briefly discusses every argument we have brought forward, but does not really look into them and thereby misses the essence of our argumentation.



Looking at

Pensi di proseguire in appello, non mi sono chiari i costi per il ricorso all'alta corte regionale di Stoccarda

 

[seneca]

Pensi di proseguire in appello, non mi sono chiari i costi per il ricorso all'alta corte regionale di Stoccarda

Non ho ancora deciso.c'é tempo fino a dicembre per aderire ,mah ne ho già di loss e sholz mi ha dato una gran botta,non so se metterò ancora mano al portafolio

 

[calamita]

Non ho ancora deciso.c'é tempo fino a dicembre per aderire ,mah ne ho già di loss e sholz mi ha dato una gran botta,non so se metterò ancora mano al portafolio

Penso di procedere con l'appello

 

[seneca]

Penso di procedere con l'appello

Io non ho aderito stanco di metter mano al portafoglio, comunque tienimi informato come procede la causa. Grazoe

 

[calamita]

Io non ho aderito stanco di metter mano al portafoglio, comunque tienimi informato come procede la causa. Grazoe

Ok

 

[calamita]

Ok

posta da Schirp prossimo 7 maggio prima udienza appello