Short Skirt No Knickers Pic

investors have no right to compensation

BGH 11.23.2010, XI ZR 26/10

have investors no right to compensation for
apparent gains
("Phoenix")
has an investor against the compensation scheme of the securities trading company in the event of insolvency of their company is not entitled to payment of fictitious profits, which the company earlier in account statements or balances receipts had reported. For neither the wording of § 1 para 4 p. 1 EAEG nor the legislative history, or the Investor Compensation Directive 97/9/EC can see evidence that the right to compensation is to include sham profits.

The facts:
The plaintiff had in September 1999 with an investment amount of around 38 461 DM plus a 4% strength premiums in the amount of 1538 DM to the Phoenix Managed Account, one of the Phoenix Capital Services GmbH in its own name for the common benefit of total of approximately 30,000 investors managed collective investment involved. This put the client money in futures contracts (futures and options) for the joint account for speculative purposes.

since 1998, the latest Phoenix Capital Services GmbH, however, only a small portion of interest received by their clients' money in accordance with the contract in futures. Much of the money was used in the way of a "pyramid scheme" for payments to old-layers and for the ongoing business and operating costs. In this way, the plaintiff was subsequently payments over a total of around € 19,304. Were disclosed to him while monthly bank statements. The last extract on 28/02/2005 had a bank balance of around € 7,571 when in fact no profits had been earned.

In March 2005, said the Federal Agency for Financial Services der Phoenix Kapitaldienst GmbH den weiteren Geschäftsbetrieb und stellte den Entschädigungsfall fest. Im Juli wurde dann über das Vermögen der GmbH das Insolvenzverfahren eröffnet. Der Kläger forderte von der beklagten Entschädigungseinrichtung der Wertpapierhandelsunternehmen auf der Grundlage des letzten Kontoauszuges und nach Abzug des gesetzlichen Selbstbehalts von 10% eine Entschädigungsleistung von rund 6.814 €.

LG und KG wiesen die Klage ab. Auf die Revision des Klägers gab der BGH der Klage zu einem geringen Teil - und zwar in Höhe der Differenz zwischen der Nettoanlagesumme und den Auszahlungen sowie nach Abzug des Selbstbehalts von 10% - statt.

Die Gründe: Ein darüber Outgoing claim of the plaintiff against the defendant was not present.

drafted by the Phoenix Capital Services GmbH, account statements and confirmations of balances already represents no abstract promise of debt or acknowledgment of debt, could be the basis of a claim. In addition, however, a claim for compensation had to be denied in terms of principle on the reported profits slip in the bank statements. For neither the wording of § 1 para 4 p. 1 of the Deposit Guarantee and Investor Compensation Act (EAEC) or its legislative history, or the Investor Compensation Directive 97/9/EC of the evidence did for 3.3.1997 , Found that the right to compensation is to include sham profits.