Anyone who has lost money on an investment needs, above all, a sober assessment. Not every loss gives rise to claims. But not every supposedly proper consultation was truly one either.
Particularly with closed-end funds, participations, and other investment products, it often only becomes clear in hindsight how incompletely risks were explained, how selectively opportunities were presented, or how generously the suitability of the investment was assessed. What matters then is not the reassuring vocabulary offered after the fact, but the question of what was actually advised, explained, or concealed.
I advise and represent clients in disputes relating to investment advice, financial investments, and closed-end funds. In doing so, I examine whether advisory errors, disclosure deficiencies, or other breaches of duty may be involved and whether pursuing action makes sense both legally and economically.
Typical Cases
Closed-End Funds and Participations
Those who have invested in a closed-end fund or comparable participation often only discover later that the risk, term, availability, or economic viability looked significantly different from what was presented in the consultation. I examine what disclosure was required, what information was actually provided, and whether this gives rise to viable claims.
Defective or Incomplete Advice
Not every consultation is proper simply because documents were handed over or risks were mentioned somewhere. What matters is whether the advice in the specific case was complete, comprehensible, and appropriate for the investor. I examine whether advisory errors exist and what legal consequences follow from them.
Inaccurate Risk Presentation
Particularly in the capital investment sector, risk is often linguistically softened. “Entrepreneurial participation” suddenly becomes “solid investment,” and significant loss risks become a marginal issue. I examine whether the risk presentation was sound or whether an inaccurate picture of the investment was conveyed.
Economic Assessment Before Further Action
Not every legally conceivable claim is also economically sensible to pursue. I therefore examine not only whether action is legally defensible, but also whether the effort, risk, and potential benefit are proportionate to one another.
What Sets Me Apart in Capital Markets Law
Capital markets disputes are rarely purely legal disputes. They almost always involve economic plausibility, damage calculation, risk assessment, and the question of whether proceedings will actually be worthwhile in the end.
As an attorney and graduate economist, I therefore consider not only the legal side, but also the economic consequences. I examine whether the alleged damages are comprehensible, which arguments hold up, and whether action is reasonable. You therefore receive not merely a formal assessment, but a reliable basis for a decision that makes sense not only legally, but also economically. Romanticism yields no insight in capital markets law.
If you would like to know whether advisory errors or disclosure deficiencies may be involved in your case and whether pursuing action is worthwhile, please briefly describe your matter to me.
Briefly describe what this is about.
☎️ 05204 – 9249884 · info@anwaltskanzlei-nieweg.de
Callback usually on the same business day.
