• PRO
  • Events
  • About Blog Popular
  • Login
  • Register
  • PRO
  • Resources
    • Latest updates
    • Q&A
    • In-depth
    • In-house view
    • Practical resources
    • FromCounsel New
    • Commentary
  • Research tools
    • Global research hub
    • Lexy
    • Primary sources
    • Scanner
    • Research reports
  • Resources
  • Research tools
  • Learn
    • All
    • Webinars
    • Videos
  • Learn
  • Experts
    • Find experts
    • Influencers
    • Client Choice New
    • Firms
    • About
    Introducing Instruct Counsel
    The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you.
  • Experts
  • My newsfeed
  • Events
  • About
  • Blog
  • Popular
  • Find experts
  • Influencers
  • Client Choice New
  • Firms
  • About
Introducing Instruct Counsel
The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you.
  • Compare
  • Topics
  • Interviews
  • Guides

Analytics

Review your content's performance and reach.

  • Analytics dashboard
  • Top articles
  • Top authors
  • Who's reading?

Content Development

Become your target audience’s go-to resource for today’s hottest topics.

  • Trending Topics
  • Discover Content
  • Horizons
  • Ideation

Client Intelligence

Understand your clients’ strategies and the most pressing issues they are facing.

  • Track Sectors
  • Track Clients
  • Mandates
  • Discover Companies
  • Reports Centre

Competitor Intelligence

Keep a step ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them.

  • Benchmarking
  • Competitor Mandates
Home

Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Questions? Please contact [email protected]

Register

Real estate newsletter - spring 2014

Mayer Brown

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

If you can't read this PDF, you can view its text here. Go back to the PDF .

European Union March 31 2014

Changed Legal Situation from  May due to EnEV 2014 (Energy  Savings-Regulation 2014)

The new Energy Savings­Regula­tion (EnEV) comes into force as of  May 1, 2014, which should primarily  implement further European legal  requirements for new buildings.  However, the new version also has  significant implications for the sale  and ongoing management of existing  buildings. Here, reference should  be made to the obligation to present  and hand over the energy perfor­ mance certificate upon sale or lease,  the mandatory disclosure of data  from energy performance certifi­ cates when marketing in commercial  media, and the tightening of mod­ ernization obligations. Infringement  of any of these obligations may con­ stitute an administrative offence. In  contrast, the revision of the energy  performance certificate itself has  no impact on existing energy per­ formance certificates. These remain  valid for ten years from the date of  issuance, unless a recalculation as  if for a new building is required by  material constructional changes. obligAtion to pRESEnt And hAnd  oVER upon SAlE oR lEASE Until now, an obligation to present  existed only if the purchaser or pros­ pective tenant requested the presen­ tation of the energy performance  certificate. If the seller or landlord did  not present the certificate, it could be  punished as an administrative offence.  Upon the sale of an existing building,  it was also customary to include in the  purchase agreement an express waiver  of the presentation obligation and thus  do away with the risk of an adminis­ trative offence. This waiver option no  longer exists. Due to the revision of  Section 16 Para. 2 of the EnEV, the  energy performance certificate, or a  copy, must now be handed over or be  notified by being displayed or laid out at the pro­ perty. Even without an inspection, the original or a  copy must be presented promptly, at least upon the  buyer’s request. Upon the conclusion of a purchase  contract, the energy performance certificate (or a  copy) must be provided immediately to the buyer.  These provisions apply equally where the property  is rented. Both the deliberate or reckless breach of  the obligation to present the certificate in case of an  inspection or upon request, as well as the deliberate  or reckless breach of the duty to transfer, are con­ sidered administrative offences. Each may be pun­ ished with a fine of up to EUR 15,000.00. The EnEV provides specific exceptions to this rule  only for small buildings (i.e. those with less than  50 square meters of usable space) and monuments.  No obligation exists in respect of demolition proper­ ties either as long as they are no longer being heated. mAndAtoRy diScloSuRE FoR REAl EStAtE AdS Another new introduction is the obligation of the  seller, under Section 16a EnEV, to ensure that certain  information about the energy performance certificate  is disclosed in real estate ads in commercial media  (printed or electronic). However, this applies only if  an energy performance certificate exists at the time. For energy performance certificates issued after Sep­ tember 30, 2007, the required information includes  that information which can be found on the certifi­ cate, depending on the type of certificate. Accordingly,  new energy performance certificates do not need to be  specially applied for in the case of advertisements. Here again, deliberate or reckless breaches are con­ sidered administrative offences, which may incur a  fine of up to EUR 15,000.00. tightEning oF thE obligAtion to modERnizE The retrofit requirements listed in Section 10 EnEV  for existing buildings have been tightened even fur­ ther. On the one hand, from 2015, boilers installed  before January 1, 1985, or as soon as they are older  than thirty years, may no longer be used and must  be replaced. Previously, the cut­off date for installa­ tion was October 1, 1978. The exceptions for certain  installations remain unchanged (low temperature  and condensing boilers and heating plants with  a nominal capacity of less than four or more than  400kilowatts).In addition, it has been clarified that the insula­ tion requirement for accessible ceilings of heated  rooms applies only to on the top floor ceiling to  the attic. For the technical requirements to be met,  reference is made to specific DIN standards. The  cut­off date for proper insulation is December 31,  2015. Both breaches of either of these two retrofit  obligations or of the existing insulation require­ ments for pipes and heating fittings in unheated  rooms have in general been re­designated as  misdemeanors, punishable by a fine of up to EUR  50,000.00. outlook This was certainly not the last change or tighte­ ning­up of the EnEV. But the obligations intro­ duced with this amendment are already enough  to keep existing property owners in suspense and  cause considerable expenseThe issuance of an  additional enforceable copy  by notaries The Law on Transfer of Tasks in the  Field of Voluntary Jurisdiction to  Notaries of June 26, 2013 (Federal  Law Gazette I 2013, p. 1800) has re­ vised Section 797 Para. 3 ZPO (Code  of Civil Procedure) with effect from  September 1, 2013 to the effect that  the decision on issuing an additional  enforceable copy of a notarial deed  is made by the notary holding the  document in custody. contEnt oF thE REgulAtion Firstly, it should be clarified what is  meant by issuance of an additional  enforceable copy of a deed  within  the meaning of Section 733 ZPO.  Specifically, this occurs only when  several copies of one and the same  title, and hence in relation to the  same procedural claim, exist or can  be used simultaneously in legal  relations. However, an additional  enforceable copy does not exist if the  copy which was issued first is retur­ ned or if there are several titles to the  same claim. As a result of the new regulation, after  examining the existence of the condi­ tions for the issuance of an enforceable  copy, the competent notary no longer  needs a court decision. In that regard,  the creditor is spared a detour through  the courts. The decision of the competent no­ tary is subject to the requirements of  Section 733 ZPO, as in the past. Thus, the creditor has to show a right  to the issuance of the enforceable copy,  and also an interest in a re­issued  enforceable copy. Thus, a validly exi­ sting, enforceable title with enforcea­ ble content is required. gelena yufa Associate, Frankfurt  T +49 69 7941 1027 [email protected]  Real Estate | Recent Developments and Decisions | Spring 2014 The creditor’s interest in the issuance of an add­ itional copy must also outweigh the debtor’s in­ terest in protection against a duplicate claim. That  is the case, for example, if the creditor has lost the  enforceable copy or if it is not clear that the creditor  received the enforceable copy at all. A creditor’s in­ terest is further deemed to exist if the creditor wishes  to enforce against various assets of the debtor at the  same time, or if a majority of creditors or debtors  exists. Under Section 733 Para. 1 ZPO, a debtor’s hearing  shall always be offered by the notary, unless the  situation is beyond doubt or the hearing appears  impracticable in case of particular urgency. In the  latter case, the creditor’s urgent interest shall be  set out separately. The issuance of an additional enforceable copy by  notaries should be covered by previously applicable   Section 133 KostO (Fee Regulation) according to the  substantiation of the law. However, the respective fee  provision is missing in the recently modernized cost  law, so that no additional fee is incurred due to the  concluding enumeration character of German Rules  on Court and Notary Fees (Gerichts­ und Notar­ kostengesetz). While Nr. 18001 cost index of German  Rules on Court and Notary Fees imposes 20.00 EUR  fee for the courts carrying out this activity, notaries  receive 0,5 fee only for issuance of the enforceable  copy when reviewing legal succession or occurrence of  a fact. The issuance of an additional enforceable copy  of the deed is not mentioned under this provision.  Where no additional enforceable copy is issued by  a notary, the creditor has available the legal remedy  of an appeal under Sections 54 BeurkG (Law on  Notarial Acts), 58 ff. FamFG (Family Proceedings  Act). The debtor may, on the other hand, present his  objections as to the admissibility of the enforcement  clause by means of the clause reminder under Section  732 ZPO. outlook The Law on the Transfer of Tasks in the Field of  Voluntary Jurisdiction to Notaries ultimately led only  to a selective easing of the strain on the courts. There  is consensus in the literature that this has not caused  a revolution in the distribution of responsibilities.  The regulation on issuing an additional enforceable  copy by notaries, is at the same time to be welcomed  on principle, because there is no doubt that this task  can be performed by notaries just as well as it has  been by regionally competent district courts in the  past. It remains to be seen whether in the future  newer efforts are made by the legislature to delegate  further judicial duties to the notaries.Written form and change of legal  form for the tenant BGH (German Federal Court  of Justice), ruling dated  December 11, 2013 – XII ZR 137/12 On the written form for a  contractual change of tenant during  the term of a lease agreement  FActS The defendant rented a commer­ cial property in L. to the tenant, N.  GmbH, on August 25, 1995 to operate  a transport company. According to  Item 2 No. 1 of the lease agreement, a  fixed term of 15 years was agreed for  the lease agreement, with a five­year  extension option. In January 1998,  N. GmbH changed its name to J.  GmbH. Later, J. GmbH concluded a  „purchase and transfer agreement for  an equity interest“ with the plaintiff’s  legal predecessor. In this agreement,  the contractual parties agreed that the  purchaser would enter in seller’s stead  into all of the rights and obligations  from the contracts listed in the annex  attached to the contract, which inclu­ ded a table listing the rented proper­ ties, the locations, landlords and in­ formation on the rent to be paid. This  included the following information:  „Location: L.; landlord: G GbR; rent  163,608... accumulated 1,963,296“.  The plaintiff requests that the court  find that the rental relationship is for  an indefinite period due to the written  form not being upheld.  contEnt And SubjEct oF thE dEciSion The courts upheld the claim in all  instances. The German Supreme  Court noted that the plaintiff did not  become a party to the lease agreement  on grounds of universal succession.  There is neither a merger agreement  nor a transfer of assets nor a transfer of  dr. jörg michael lang Partner, Frankfurt T +49 69 7941 1761 [email protected] mayer brown    9 contract according to Section 25 of the HGB (Com­ mercial Code). However, the plaintiff acquired all of  the individual assets via the purchase and transfer  agreement. It also entered into the lease agreement.  However, the German Supreme Court is of the  opinion that this did not uphold the requirement for  the written form for the lease agreement. The lease  agreement is deemed concluded for an indefinite  period. If the contractual parties subsequently reach  an agreement in which material components of the  contract are to be changed, according to current  legislation by the German Supreme Court, this must  refer to the original agreement in a sufficiently clear  manner to uphold the requirement for the written  form in Section 550 Sentence 1 of the BGB (Civil  Code), list the changed regulations, and show that  the remainder of the provisions of the original con­ tract are to remain in force. The German Supreme  Court has now also confirmed these principles for the  event that an agreement is reached on the change of  parties to a lease agreement, as this information is a  material contractual condition which is covered by  the requirement for the written form.  In the German Supreme Court’s view, this was not  the case here. The table attached to the purchase and  transfer agreement for the contractual relationships  to be taken over did not allow the property affected  to be clearly determined due to the lack of a con­ crete place name. In addition, the German Supreme  Court admonishes that the original tenant N. GmbH  was not named. The fact that J. GmbH, which con­ cluded the purchase and transfer agreement could  be seen to be its legal successor in the commercial  register does not rectify this defect. The date of the  lease agreement also could not be derived from the  annex. Finally, there was also a difference in the rent  included in the list to the rent stated in the lease  agreement.  impAct on dAy-to-dAy pRActicE The decision shows the importance of the require­ ment for the written form for commercial lease  agreements in connection with a change of parties  to the lease agreement. This is possible in various  ways. The most frequent and simplest form in  practice is that either the landlord or the tenant is  replaced by a third party. If the parties to the lease  agreement subsequently reach an agreement which  changes material components of the contract, in  order to uphold the requirement for the written form in Section 550 Sentence 1 of the BGB, this  must sufficiently clearly refer to the original agree­ ment, list the changed regulations and show that  the other provisions of the original contract are to  remain in force. This also applies to an agreement  on a change to the contractual parties, as stating the  parties to the lease agreement is one of the mate­ rial contractual conditions that are covered by the  requirement for the written form set out in Section  550 Sentence 1 of the BGB. Contractually changing  a tenant in a lease agreement, which requires the  written form set out in Section 550 of the BGB as a  result of its term, thus also requires that the written  form is upheld if the term is to remain the same.  In order to uphold the written form, the change  of tenant must be documented in such a way that  the contractual position of the new tenant results  in connection with the lease agreement concluded  between the previous tenant and the landlord. This  contract transfer can be concluded as a three­party  contract or as a contract between two participants  that is approved by a third participant. If a change  of tenant is performed by way of an agreement  between the previous tenant and the new tenant,  this requires approval from the landlord, which can  also take place via a contract implied in fact. This  approval ­ and this is a key exception to the require­ ment for written form ­ can also be concludent,  i.e. without a requirement for a specific form, for  example via the receipt of rental payments, receipt  of a rent guarantee, and addressing invoices for in­ cidental costs and requests for rent increases to the  new tenant. As a result, the German Supreme Court  has decided that, in the case of a change of landlord  between the former and new landlord, the requi­ site approval from the tenant does not require the  written form according to Section 550 of the BGB  (Ruling BGHZ 154, 171 = NZM 2003, 476,478). The  German Supreme Court also held that a change of  tenant agreed between the landlord and the former  tenant does not require a specific form of consent  from the new tenant to be effective (Ruling dated  April 20, 2005 ­ XII ZR 29/02 ­ NZM 2005, 584,  585). However, these decisions only concerned the  requirement for a specific form for the requisite ap­ proval by a third party to a contract transfer agreed  between just two parties. We must differentiate this  from the issue of whether the subsequent agree­ ment on the change of landlord or tenant requires  the written form. Even if approval by a third party  is possible without requiring a specific form, the  subsequent agreement on a change of landlord or tenant must sufficiently clearly refer to the original  lease agreement in order to uphold the written form. A change of tenant can also result in the event  that a company is purchased. This is possible via  an acquisition of all of the individual assets of a  company or part of a company (so­called asset deal;  see Palandt/Putzo BGB, 73rd Edition 2014, Section  453, margin number 7). The acquiring party does not  then become the universal successor for the selling  party. Rather, managing the purchase of a company  requires a separate act of transfer for each individual  asset that is to be transferred to the acquiring party.  This act must be geared to the relevant material  provisions. This is why, in an asset deal, the acquiring  party does not enter by way of universal succession  into contractual relationships in which the selling  party is authorised and obliged, and which are cove­ red by the purchase of the company. Instead, these  agreements must first be transferred to the acquiring  party in the requisite form in order for said party to  become a contracting party. Then the above princip­ les apply. In the case of the purchase of a company by acquiring  an equity interest (so­called share deal; see Palandt/ Putzo, loc. cit.), in contrast the acquiring party enters  into the existing contractual relationships including  lease agreements. In this case no separate transfer  of the lease agreements is required. Restructurings  under the Restructuring Act constitute an important  case in practice. This allows a far­reaching transfer  of assets via universal succession without approval by  the affected creditors. Compliance with written form  in case of undefined but  determinable begin of lease BGH (German Federal Court  of Justice), ruling dated July 24,  2013 – XII ZR 104/12 With its July 24, 2013 decision, the  Federal Court of Justice has con­ firmed its rulings of recent years  for a practical interpretation of the  written form requirement. With  reference to rental start dates it has,  based on a new configuration of its  rulings, determined that it is suffi­ cient if the start and end dates of the  lease term are noted in a sufficiently  clear way in the contract document  at the time the contract is entered  into (Ruling of February 24, 2010 IX  ZR 120/06, NJW 2010, 1516 margin  no.11 with further notes). FActS At issue was a lease with the following  provisions: “The tenancy, and therefore the  obligation to pay the rent, begins with  the handover/takeover of the leased  property.  If the handover/takeover is delayed  due to changes requested by the tenant  (...) or by failure promptly to submit  the plans or documents required for  the upgrading of the rental space (...)  or through the late payment of the  security (...), then the tenancy begins on  the day on which the property would  have been handed over in the absence  of these alteration requests or had  the documents or plans, and/or the  bank guarantee been made available  promptly. If the rent falls into arrears  upon the takeover of the rental pro­ perty, then the tenancy begins with the  occurrence of a delay in accepting the  property.” Wahrung der Schriftform  bei unbestimmtem, aber  bestimmbarem Mietbeginn BGH, Urteil vom 24. Juli 2013 –  XII ZR 104/12 Mit seinem Urteil vom 24. Juli 2013  hat der Bundesgerichtshof seine  Rechtsprechung der letzten Jahre  zur praktikablen Auslegung des  Schriftformerfordernisses bestätigt.  In Bezug auf den Mietbeginn hat er  in einer neuen Fallkonstellation an  seiner Rechtsprechung, dass es aus­ reichend sei, wenn sich Beginn und  Ende der Mietzeit zum Zeitpunkt des  Vertragsschlusses in hinreichend  bestimmter Weise aus der Vertrags­ urkunde ergibt (Urt. v. 24. Februar  2010 IX ZR 120/06, NJW 2010,  1516 Rz. 11 m. w. N), festgehalten. SAchVERhAlt Streitgegenständlich war ein Miet­ vertrag mit folgenden Bestimmungen: „Das Mietverhältnis und damit die  Pflicht zur Zahlung des Mietzinses  beginnt mit der Übergabe/Übernahme  der Mietsache.  Verzögert sich die Übergabe/Über­ nahme durch Änderungswünsche des  Mieters (….) oder durch nicht recht­ zeitige Vorlage der für den Mietausbau  erforderlichen Pläne und Unterlagen  (….) oder durch nicht rechtzeitige  Leistung der Sicherheit (….), beginnt  das Mietverhältnis mit dem Tag, an  dem das Objekt ohne diese Änderungs­ wünsche bzw. bei rechtzeitigem Vor­ liegen der Unterlagen und Pläne bzw.  der Bankbürgschaft übergeben worden  wäre. Gerät der Mietzins mit der Über­ nahme des Mietobjektes in Verzug, so  beginnt das Mietverhältnis mit Eintritt  des Annahmeverzuges.“ dr. jürgen Streng Partner, Düsseldorf T +49 211 86224 216 [email protected] brown    13 The lower court (Higher Regional Court of Hamm)  had taken the view that the requirement for written  form under Sections 550 and 578 BGB [“German  Civil Code”] was infringed, as the tenancy may have  begun to run from the time of a fictitious transfer. This additional agreement would have allowed the  start of the lease to appear unascertainable. In par­ ticular, a purchaser bound, under Section 566 BGB,  by the provisions of the lease, could be faced with  considerable practical difficulties in trying to deter­ mine the date of the start of the lease. It followed  that, due to the impossibility of determining the start  of the lease the written form requirement had not  been met. contEnt And SubjEct oF thE dEciSion In contrast, the Federal Court of Justice explains that  the appeal court had placed excessively high demands  on the concept of determinability. An abstract  description, which makes it possible to determine the  rental period, was sufficient. It is sufficient if the facts  to which the contracting parties tie the beginning of  the contract were determined sufficiently precisely  for there to be no remaining doubt about the start of  the contract once the contract is implemented. This is  the case here. This sufficient certainty of the start of the tenancy  was also not called into question by the provisions  in  the second paragraph concerning the beginning of  the rental period. These provisions also made it pos­ sible for a potential purchaser of the leased property  to ascertain when the contract began. The purchaser  is able to discern from the contract document in  which cases the lease should begin before the actual  handover, and it would be apparent to him which  point in time should be used for the beginning of the  contract instead of actual takeover. This is sufficient  to satisfy the requirement for written form. The written form was, in particular, not subject to  question simply as a result of the agreement on the  contract start date containing terms of interpretation  or the finding of whether the circumstances to which  the parties had linked the start of the contract had  actually occurred. Die Vorinstanz (Oberlandesgericht Hamm) hatte die  Ansicht vertreten, dass das Schriftformerfordernis  gem. §§ 550, 578 BGB verletzt sei, da das Mietver­ hältnis möglicherweise ab einem Zeitpunkt einer  fiktiven Übergabe zu laufen beginne.  Diese zusätzliche Vereinbarung lasse den Beginn  des Mietverhältnisses nicht mehr als bestimmbar er­ scheinen. Insbesondere werde ein Erwerber, der gem.  § 566 BGB an die Bestimmungen des Mietvertrages  gebunden sei, bei dem Versuch, den Tag des Miet­ vertragsbeginns festzustellen, möglicherweise vor er­ hebliche tatsächliche Schwierigkeiten gestellt. Dem­ entsprechend sei das Schriftformerfordernis mangels  Bestimmbarkeit des Vertragsbeginns nicht gewahrt.  inhAlt und gEgEnStAnd dER EntSchEidung Demgegenüber führt der Bundesgerichtshof aus,  dass das Berufungsgericht zu hohe Anforderungen  an den Begriff der Bestimmbarkeit stelle. Eine ab­ strakte Beschreibung, die es ermögliche, den Miet­ beginn zu ermitteln, sei ausreichend. Hinreichend  sei, dass der Sachverhalt, an den die Vertragspar­ teien den Vertragsbeginn knüpfen, so genau be­ stimmt werde, dass bei seiner Verwirklichung kein  Zweifel am Vertragsbeginn verbleibe. Dies sei vorlie­ gend der Fall. Diese hinreichende Bestimmtheit des Mietbeginns  werde auch nicht durch Regelungen zum Miet­ beginn im zweiten Absatz in Frage gestellt. Der  Vertragsbeginn sei auch durch diese Regelungen für  einen möglichen Erwerber der Mietsache bestimm­ bar. Der Erwerber kann aus der Vertragsurkunde  erkennen, in welchen Fällen der Mietvertrag bereits  vor der tatsächlichen Übergabe beginnen sollte,  und es sei für ihn ersichtlich, welcher Zeitpunkt für  den Vertragsbeginn an die Stelle der tatsächlichen  Übergabe treten solle. Dies Genüge, um dem Schrift­ formerfordernis Genüge zu tun. Die Schriftform sei  insbesondere nicht dadurch in Frage gestellt, dass  die Vereinbarung über den Vertragsbeginn aus­ legungsbedürftige Begriffe enthalte oder die Fest­ stellung, ob die Umstände, an die die Parteien den  Vertragsbeginn geknüpft haben, tatsächlich auch  eingetreten seien.14  Real Estate | Recent Developments and Decisions | Spring 2014 impAct on dAy-to-dAy pRActicE This ruling by the BGH deserves approval, in parti­ cular because for reasons of the legal certainty, prac­ ticality and manageability of leases, no excessively  high demands should be linked to the written form  requirement. This is because infringements of the  written form requirement in practice do not usually  concern the protection of a potential purchaser, but  rather relate to the desire by one of the parties to  the contract to be released early from the tenancy.  Accordingly, the lease should contain no impractical  requirements or requirements that bypass the legal  reality concerning the determination of the start and  end of the lease. Thus, for example, when the lease  document provides for a renewal option in favor of a  party, it is not clear from the document itself whether  the option was exercised. The same applies to a  longer­term lease, which provides that it becomes  effective only upon the occurrence of a future condi­ tion. Should it be necessary to lay down all these facts  in the lease document, this would result in high costs  in relation to the addenda as well as a high degree  of legal uncertainty with regard to compliance with  the requirement for written form. For that reason,  the BGH should be concurred with that it did not set  the requirements too high, and thus ensured that the  conclusion of long­term leases is legally secure. Liability of a bank that finances  a property fund for deliberate  unethical damage to investors by  fund managers BGH (German Federal Court of  Justice), ruling dated  December 3, 2013 – XI ZR 295/12 In recent years, the Federal Court  of Justice (BGH) has repeatedly  dealt with various issues related to  the liability of banks that finance  property funds. The case decided  in December 2013 concerned, in  particular, the question of the in­ volvement of a financing bank in  deliberate unethical prejudice,  under Section 826 BGB (German  Civil Code), to investors in the fund  by a founding shareholder (BGH,  judgment of December 3, 2013, case  reference XI ZR 295/12), which was  denied in this particular case. Facts A bank brought claims against the  investors as shareholders in a closed  real estate fund in the form of a com­ pany incorporated under civil law, for  the proportional repayment of a loan  to the fund. The loan, which was taken  out by the fund before the investors  joined the fund, served to finance the  purchase of property. Due to a fund  deficit which had arisen, the bank had  terminated the loan for cause. The  fund prospectus did not disclose an in­ terim profit, which had been achieved  when the fund acquired the fund’s real  estate from a company whose share­ holders were also the fund’s managers,  for a price around 28% higher than  the latter had paid to a third party only  three days previously. It subsequently  transpired that the fund initiators had  adopted this approach in several cases  and systematically deceived investors. Anja giesen Associate, Düsseldorf T +49 211 86224 240 [email protected] Haftung einer das Fondsobjekt finanzierenden Bank bei  vorsätzlicher sittenwidrigen  Schädigung der Anleger durch  Fondsinitiatoren BGH, Urteil vom 3. Dezember  2013 – XI ZR 295/12 In den letzten Jahren hatte sich der  Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) wiederholt  mit verschiedenen Fragestellungen  zur Haftung einer ein Fondsobjekt  finanzierenden Bank zu beschäftigen.  In dem im Dezember 2013 entschie­ denen Fall ging es insbesondere um  die Frage der Mitwirkung der finan­ zierenden Bank an einer vorsätzlichen  sittenwidrigen Schädigung gemäß  § 826 BGB von Fondsanlegern durch  einen Gründungsgesellschafter (BGH,  Urteil vom 3. Dezember 2013, Akten­ zeichen XI ZR 295/12), welche im  konkreten Fall verneint wurde.  SAchVERhAlt Eine Bank nahm die Anleger als Ge­ sellschafter eines in Form einer Gesell­ schaft bürgerlichen Rechts betriebenen  geschlossenen Immobilienfonds quotal  auf Rückzahlung eines dem Fonds ge­ währten Darlehens in Anspruch. Das  Darlehen, welches von dem Fonds aufge­ nommen wurde, bevor die Anleger dem  Fonds beitraten, diente der Finanzierung  des Objektankaufs. Aufgrund einer auf­ getretenen Unterdeckung des Fonds  hatte die Bank das Darlehen aus wich­ tigem Grund gekündigt. Im Fondspro­ spekt war ein Zwischengewinn nicht aus­ gewiesen, der dadurch erzielt wurde, dass  der Fonds die Fondsimmobilie für einen  rund 28 Prozent höheren Kaufpreis von  einer Gesellschaft erworben hatte, deren  Gesellschafter ebenfalls die Fondsini­ tiatioren waren, als diese ihrerseits nur  drei Tage zuvor von einem Dritten. Es  stellte sich im Nachhinein heraus, dass  die Fondsinitiatoren in mehreren Fällen  nach diesem Muster vorgingen und Anle­ ger planmäßig täuschten.16  Real Estate | Recent Developments and Decisions | Spring 2014 contEnt And SubjEct oF thE dEciSion The BGH largely upheld the decision of the Zweibru­ ecken OLG (Higher Regional Court, Zweibruecken),  (decision of January 27, 2011 – 7 U 20/11). Initially,  the bank was granted a claim against the share­ holders as being jointly and severally liable for the  proportional repayment of the outstanding indebted­ ness under the loan, pursuant to Sections 128 and  130 HGB (German Commercial Code), by analogy  with the principles of flawed accession by share­ holders. To be examined next were any counterclaims  by investors submitted in course of the proceedings.  In the absence of any direct contractual relationship,  the BGH denied a claim by the bank for damages for  breach of duty to inform. The substance of the deci­ sion lies in the discussion of the question of involve­ ment in unethical damage and hence a counterclaim  under Sections 826 and 830 Para. 1 Sentence 1 and  Para. 2 BGB. The concealment of the interim profit  in the fund’s prospectus was classed as an erroneous  statement and thus as unethical prejudice by the  fund managers to investors. One might also regard  the granting of real estate financing by the bank as  objective assistance, but it was said that the bank  lacked the subjective element of intent to do harm.  Although it had known the acquisition and disposal  prices, so that it must have noticed the discrepancy  in the amounts, the bank could not be accused of  knowledge of systematic behaviour on the part of  the managers nor of concealing the interim profit in  the prospectus as it was unaware of the prospectus.  Thus the bank was not liable for involvement in the  unethical prejudice to the investors. At first glance, the decision seems to contradict  a 2009 decision of the BHG (BGH, decision of  September 29, 2009 – XI ZR 179/07) in which  the Senate concluded that a financing bank was at  least involved in unethical prejudice to investors.  In principle, the case was similar in nature: share­ holders in a real estate company incorporated  under civil law (investors), the fund manager and  the financing bank were arguing over reciprocal  claims. In a fund prospectus, investors were led to  believe that a subsidiary liability existed, which had  not in fact been agreed with the bank. The court  found that this constituted a misrepresentation  which was crucial to the investors’ decision to par­ ticipate in the fund, which in principle led to the  manager’s obligation to pay compensation due to  deliberate unethical prejudice in which the bank had participated. The key difference compared with  the decision of 2013 is that because, in the latter  case, the financing bank knew of the representation  in the fund prospectus – and this representation  contradicted its own loan agreements and it had ex­ pressly pointed this out to the manager – the bank  could not agree a subsidiary liability provision to  repay the real estate finance loans as represented  in the fund prospectus with respect to the per­ sonal liability of the investors (shareholders in  the fund). The bank had, therefore, systematically  and knowingly participated in the deception of  investors in that, aware of the manager’s inten­ ded actions, it had gone ahead with funding the  real estate, and thereby allowed and intended the  deception. The bank’s actions were also not justi­ fied by its pursuit of its own legitimate interests.  Admittedly, the bank was permitted to insist on  a direct personal liability but it could not thereby  participate in a deception of investors.  This means that the bank should either have refused  the real estate financing or insisted on an amend­ ment of the fund’s prospectus. However, the extent to  which the bank is affected by a supervisory duty re­ mains open. In light of the recent decision, the bank  is not liable as long as it did not know of the fund’s  prospectus or was unaware of a misrepresentation  as to the extent of the liability of the investors in the  fund. However, where it becomes aware of a state­ ment in the fund prospectus that contradicts its own  contractual documentation, it shall, in light of the  2009 decision by the BGH, in its own interest, have  an increased duty to insist on a corresponding correc­ tion of the prospectus, as otherwise, it shall, where re­ levant, be liable for corresponding damage or may be  subject to such a counterclaim as may oppose its own  claim to repayment of the loan. It may seem strange  that in a comparison of the decisions a bank which  conscientiously keeps itself informed and discusses  its customer’s fund prospectus bears a higher risk of  liability than a bank which finances a property fund  without carrying out any more in­depth examination.  This is due to the fact that a subjective element is  always an intrinsic part of unethical damage, i.e., the  knowledge of and intent in relation to – or at least an  acceptance of – damage to the investor. impAct on dAy-to-dAy pRActicE If a bank does not finance the investors’ investment,  then the bank has no obligation to inform investors,  because there is no contractual relationship with  the investors. According to the BGH, even in a loan  agreement with the fund, no duty to inform investors  is incurred.  When examining a fund prospectus, if a bank  notices misinformation that is likely to influence  investors in their decision, it should, in order  to avoid liability for involvement in deliberate  unethical prejudice, go ahead with the financing  only upon presentation of a corrected prospectus  (for example, by agreeing a corresponding con­ dition precedent to drawdown).  The case law concerning the liability of a bank  financing a property fund for deliberate unethical  prejudice to investors shows that it often depends  on the individual situation and should in general  be  treated with caution.  Overview Real Estate Transfer  Tax Rates The following table provides an over­ view of the current status of the real  estate transfer tax rates in the indivi­ dual federal states (March 24, 2014).  To the extent that specific information  and indications regarding a change of  the real estate transfer tax rate exist  in a state, this was noted accordingly.  Changes since the last issue in autumn  2013 are marked in bold. 

baden-württemberg 5.0% bavaria 3.5% berlin  6.0%   brandenburg 5.0% bremen 5.0%   hamburg 4.5% hesse 5.0%  (increase to 6.0% planned as from January 1, 2015)* mecklenburg-western pomerania 5.0% lower Saxony 5.0% north Rhine-westphalia 5.0% Rhineland-palatinate 5.0% Saarland 5.5% Saxony 3.5% Saxony-Anhalt 5.0% Schleswig-holstein 6.5% thuringia 5.0% 

Mayer Brown - Dr. Jörg Michael Lang, Notar, Dr. Jürgen Streng, Anja Giesen, Elmar Günther, Gelena Yufa and Cornelia Geißler

Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Filed under

  • European Union
  • Banking
  • Real Estate
  • Tax
  • Mayer Brown

Popular articles from this firm

  1. The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group issues draft European Sustainability Reporting Standards *
  2. Net neutrality: body of European regulators for electronic communications publishes final report and new consultations on net neutrality *
  3. Brexit: impact on M&A and ECM transactions *
  4. Appeals to the EU Court of Justice in relation to competition law *
  5. The European court’s dismissal of the UK’s challenge to the short selling regulation *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected].

Powered by Lexology

Related practical resources PRO

  • How-to guide How-to guide: How to navigate challenges relating to Source of Wealth and Source of Funds (UK)
  • Checklist Checklist: Managing a dawn raid
  • How-to guide How-to guide: How to negotiate and draft governing law and court jurisdiction clauses in a commercial agreement (UK)

Related research hubs

  • European Union
  • Real Estate
  • Tax
Back to Top
Resources
  • Daily newsfeed
  • Commentary
  • Q&A
  • Research hubs
  • Learn
  • In-depth
  • Lexy: AI search
Experts
  • Find experts
  • Legal Influencers
  • Firms
  • About Instruct Counsel
More
  • About us
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
Legal
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
Contact
  • Contact
  • RSS feeds
  • Submissions
 
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on LinkedIn

© Copyright 2006 - 2022 Law Business Research

Law Business Research