Auer Witte Thiel informed: bankruptcy court not obliged to residence determination Munich September 2013: a debtor had to learn recently what consequences it may have to specify no summonable address in court, the remaining debts first ran everything which after dissolution of the Insolve normal: A debtor insolvency proceedings with request for remaining debts introduces, which it is also announced. The existing insolvency administrator is appointed as the trustee and insolvency proceedings is lifted. Single hook: the debtor is abroad a summonable address does not exist. This is exactly what, Auer Witte Thiel, explains the debtor eventually became fatal. Auer Witte Thiel: BGH puts above all lack of contact effort to the load of the attorneys at law, providing more information on the subject of insolvency law under debtor, explain: the failure of his duty to cooperate, to specify an address, under which he is reachable, the debtor did not have a Level of knowledge of the course of the procedure. Many writers such as Steffan Lehnhoff offer more in-depth analysis.
The trustee could identify only a mailbox and E-Mail address. Other leaders such as Barry Nalebuff offer similar insights. There sent letters but not reached the debtor according to his own words. Also no attempt was assumed by himself, to make contact and to inform themselves about the current status. Not changed with his return to Germany. He sent his new address of the trustee and the Court only by E-Mail, without hooks to, whether they were entered into.
This was not the case on the basis of outdated/incorrect addresses. Because the debtor had closed his foreign mailbox, he was thus unreachable for court and trustee. Auer Witte Thiel: Neglect of the duty obligation has consequences due to the unsuccessful communication the requests for payment of the fiduciary, demanding their minimum payment deadline, nor the request for the opinion reached the debtor, when this was an application for refusal of the remaining debts given no response. Thus went off the Court, the debtor is unknown warped and upheld the request, which was then publicly announced. Finally, the debtor filed a legal complaint with the Federal Supreme Court and sued for establishment in integrum. This was rejected however. To justify Auer Witte Thiel explains: due to violation of his duty to cooperate, and lack of contact initiative, the plaintiff bears the downplaying on the misery of communications and their consequences, such as the shipping Fristung of the application. No duty to investigate the residence of the debtor meets the insolvency court (BGH judgment of 16 may 2013, AZ.) IX ZB 272/11). About the law firm Auer Witte Thiel, the specialization areas of focus and the development of core competencies in certain disciplines are indispensable in the legal services sector. Auer Witte Thiel is a business law oriented law firm and represents several German insurance companies. The firm Auer Witte Thiel is Munich. How to contact with lawyers Bayerstrasse Auer Witte Thiel 27 80335 Munchen phone: 089/59 98 97 60 fax: 089 / 550 38 71 E-Mail: Web:
Is a family vote Democratic? Mother, father and two children want to vote on the next holidays, Alpine or Baltic Sea. Generous mother explains: each of us four can choose between Yes and no! Eight options are for four voices. The vote to determine the venue: North Sea – Yes or no. Votes state by 4-0 or 3-1 Pro voices (cross-check), it goes to the sea. Otherwise goes BBs in the mountains. Abstention is not possible.
With the score at 2:2 is drawn. The choice is public.” Is this democratic? Yes! Is it fair? No! The reason: There is a complex systemic relationship of dependence in each family. The choice should be practiced so at least secretly. To solve a complex problem dividing into individual parts and steps this systemic cybernetic dynamic process complexity: algorithm is an algorithm a unique action provision consisting of finitely many steps computing and working procedures defined in finitely many steps to solve a problem or a class of problem s. To elect the Government of a nation, there are several methods (art + way, algorithms), depending on the form of Government: democracy: Federal or centralized (open cybernetic system 3rd order) dictatorship (closed cybernetic system 3rd order) monarchy (closed cybernetic system 3rd order) the ancient Greeks practiced in elections the principle of: one man, one vote. The it was taken literally and so 20% certain rich men over the remaining 80% of the population: truly a dictatorship incorrectly called democracy! But the Greeks losten out occasionally your MEPs also un democratically! Also in Germany occasionally discusses the families vote as democratic base.
The father as a representative of his entire family. The parents as temporary representatives of their children up to the age of majority. Thus, young people would be disadvantaged significantly less by the majority of the elderly. At the local level is a quite interesting possibility: why must senile old still driving but go healthy boy with a moped to the high school? The coming age pyramid as a dictatorship of the age crowd! There in Germany has long been the CDU/CSU benefited decades away.
Only the Munich courts have so far represented a much stronger stance. These have softened them in our latest proceedings however. “Munich say: MIA san mia!” The judge of the District Court and the District Court of Munich had unanimously expressed that they would not feel on such a legal specification by the OLG Cologne, but rather would take account of the scale of the OLG Munich. The decision of the OLG Cologne is too inaccurate. The Munich District Court I has a ruling of the 14.02.2012 (AZ.: 21 S 9214/11) in principle the objective for the Munich judge by analogy defines: If the presentation of the port owner excludes it or appear sufficiently likely in the life experience, that the injury not can be committed during the period from the time of him themselves as perpetrators, because he can specify a specifically different sequence of events. We have fought through again what is including in numerous proceedings before the District Court of Munich. In numerous legal proceedings the Court in Munich decided again and again, the lecture was not precise enough. We now have the revolution.
I have now in 3 proceedings (AG Munchen, AZ: 142 C-18346/13;) AZ: 158 C 15612/13;(AZ.: 113 C 20287/13) is more or less a new Munich line “can work out. You could shorten the above in detail described scale of the Munich courts also apply as follows: the connection owner can exclude with almost certainly that he comes as a perpetrator in question and a third, most likely committed the violation. This went so far that the connection owner now present a burden of proof in the framework I believe should have that he is not the culprit. Now 3 judges in 3 proceedings, have my legal opinion independently of each other, this goes too far. The new benchmark in the courts of Munich is the serious possibility now. To the relief of the Holder as perpetrators enough, if there is the serious possibility that someone third could have committed copyright infringement. So, finally the Munich courts have softened their very strict attitude towards the so-called secondary presentation load in a reasonable way. There are good ways to help you! Georg Schafer Attorney