Liability of Direktbankt with interposition of investment advisory investment service providers once again the liability situation of the banks in relation to an investment advice news. Anders however went there than in the until date determined liability cases currently to the interposition of an investment advisor. The BGH had the issue to tackle, whether a claim for damages against a direct bank in question comes, although the immediate advice and issue financial products was carried out by an investment advisory investment service providers. The applicant had opened an interest plus account in 2005. It was a day account with an annual fixed interest rate of 4.5%. This day money account was linked to a depot for the registration of securities. The direct Bank and the investment services providers agreed that the former only the market rate of interest over should take (since the 4.5% significantly exceeded them).
The investment services providers should compensate for the difference in price. This was a significant business of loss of, the by yielding financial transactions with the bookkeeper and corresponding Commission receipt should be absorbed. In the period from January 2007 to December 2008, the applicant made numerous purchases of bearer shares, bearer after consultation by the investment service providers notes and participation certificates. Drastic losses when the applicant entered with their sale. A liability of the direct bank due to bad investment advice is from the outset considered, because no investment advisory agreement is concluded between the applicant and the direct bank. Moreover, these are etc. responsible for the interposition of investment services providers for the customer satisfaction survey in regard to any knowledge, financial relationships.
The BGH after also an imputation of the behavior of investment services providers is not viable, because it is an independently operating company in the investment services providers. Also, the Bank has usually no obligation to monitor the advice. If the Bank However positive knowledge of actual false advice has or can assume due to significant notes, is for them a duty to warn, so that a claim for damages can result. To demonstrate of this knowledge, the facts of the case was referred back to the Court of appeal. Thus, the risk of a liability due to incorrect advice is for a bank in a more connected relationship provided a knowledge or appropriate negligence. Bundesgerichtshof, judgment of March 19, 2013 – XI ZR 431/11
