Here, too, the LG Dresden their full extent followed the argument of the defendant, as in the corresponding letter from 2007 a revocation was only hidden, i.e. the consumer has been not informed sufficiently on the corresponding legal consequences. Especially Gallinat Bank AG in many cases has used these rollover deals, even though the original credit – interest bonds as in this case – not even had expired. This approach of the Bank was used solely for the purpose to push a withdrawal to the original contract and also only with the reference to take note. Real according to the LG Dresden, a fair contract partner in this case would need to remind them that the original revocation was not then comply with the door revocation law so that you would do so with the postponement. “The LG Dresden chose here the correct formulation, stating that this approach only as sleight of hand” can be called. Since the loan agreement and the accession of Fund indisputably a related business representing are the parties obliged to return the received service to the other party. This means as a result that the investor can basically require reimbursement of previously paid rates minus the so far received distributions from the funds, as well as the release of any securities by the Bank.

It also means that the defendant is basically no longer obliged to pay the agreed loan rates the Bank and owe no repayment of the open loan proceeds. The judgment of the LG Dresden is not yet final. This decision shows how already many others against the Gallinat Bank AG, that they were often ineffective with the result that investors can explain even today the withdrawal of this used cancellation policy. Contact: Patrick M. Zagni Attorney / lawyer specializing in banking and capital market law boiler str. 19 70327 Stuttgart phone: 0711/9455855-0 fax: 0711/9455855-20