LHR obtains advertising ban against "investor protection lawyers" due to non-existent "protection association"

Back in January and April 2014, we reported on two cases in which an “investor protection law firm” used dubious methods to catch clients. See: LHR obtains advertising ban against “investor protection lawyers” at Frankfurt Regional Court and Further success of LHR against “Anlegerschutzkanzlei”: 2nd injunction for unfair advertising.

Numerous almost identical mandates – legal expenses insurance pays – regardless of success

Investment law is a lucrative field for enterprising lawyers. Due to the often high investment sums, there are numerous potential clients whose “support” does not require individually coordinated legal work in individual cases due to the comparability of the cases, but can often be “provided” with the help of ready-made letters and statements of claim. In addition, many investors have legal expenses insurance that covers the costs of legal advice – regardless of its success.

At the time, the “investor protection law firm” accused our client of falsifying the balance sheet without any basis whatsoever in the hope of driving unsettled investors into a client relationship. As is so often the case, the resulting warning was again misused by the “investor protection lawyers” for advertising purposes. Both were immediately prohibited by the courts at the instigation of our law firm. We reported.

A law firm is not a protective association for investors

Before word got around that our clients would not put up with unfair client acquisition at their own expense and would take rigorous action against it, other “investor protectors” had already jumped on the bandwagon. A law firm not unknown in the field of investment law has apparently specialized in acquiring clients by registering corresponding Internet domains for alleged cases of damage, which are used to advertise alleged protective associations that “affected” or “aggrieved” investors can join.

This was also the case here. Apart from the fact that the protective association advertised in this way, which was supposed to deal with investors of our clients, did not in fact exist or that there were no injured investors at all, the law firm concealed the fact that the advertised “protective association” did not in fact consist of a genuine association of interests, but was merely a pretext to recruit clients for the law firm. Following an unsuccessful warning, we therefore applied for a temporary injunction on behalf of our client for unfair, misleading advertising, which was immediately issued by the Hamburg Regional Court (LG Hamburg, Beschluss v. 14.2.2014, Az. 312 O 43/14) in accordance with the application.

“Investor protection lawyers” issue cease-and-desist declaration

As the protective association scam was obviously a long-term business model for the lawyers concerned, they lodged an objection to the interim injunction. Only after the competent chamber had made it clear to the colleagues in the oral hearing that their appeal would be unsuccessful did they issue a corresponding declaration to cease and desist.

Update from 16.7.2014: The settlement under which the cease-and-desist declaration was issued has since been revoked by the opponents. There will now be another court decision in the preliminary injunction proceedings and probably also proceedings on the merits if no corresponding final declaration is issued. We will report further.

Update from 25.7.2014: Following the revocation of the settlement, the Regional Court essentially confirmed the preliminary injunction in its ruling of 22 July 2014. It merely limited the operative part to the specific form of infringement, which led to a loss rate of 10%. Lawyer Arno Lampmann from the law firm LHR:

“The fact that unscrupulous businessmen can also be found among lawyers is nothing new. It is also hardly surprising that some lawyers are not above suggesting a need for advice that does not actually exist in order to drive unsettled people into a mandate. What is new, however, is the audacity with which it is also suggested that there are already affected or aggrieved investors who have joined together to form a protective association, whereas in reality there is not a single member and, contrary to what is suggested, there is no genuine community of interests behind it, but merely a business-minded law firm.”

(la)

(Bild: © mariesacha – Fotolia.com)