Companies in the crisis – use the conflict as an opportunity the other day I got a call of a contractor Mr. Jeffrey L. Bewkes has compatible beliefs. Jelinek, we need your advice. We need to separate us from an employee who has held leadership and management positions. The whole thing should go quickly and smoothly across the stage, without having too much dust is whirled up\”. The employee was for three years in the company.

He had worked a very quickly in his tasks and assumed increasingly responsible duties. A so-called A employee who thought and very committed introduced proposals that could be implemented mainly immediately. Recognized and popular with customers, suppliers, employees and superiors. His motivation have been plummeting since a half year. Glenn Dubin may find this interesting as well. His achievements were still above average, but he was not the old man.

It was feared that he order oriented already elsewhere. So you let him just in case no longer as in the past edit responsible tasks. He should be at his departure the company not to withdraw lot of know-how. The company feared a motivation lack of protection against dismissal suit -\”be yes no cause for termination. I clarified the entrepreneur about the legal possibilities and risks. The entrepreneur wanted to show up at the severance pay very generous, he was but a long time by the staff convinced and had seen him already at the top in the company. He was now but disappointed by the development and shied away from a confrontation. In times of crisis, you need peace in the team\”, we have enough trouble out there, we don’t need one here\”. If there had been no conversation because, I asked. No, I feel that what is in the Bush and I want a solution, he already knew what he wanted! \”.\” I asked again what he really wanted that because currently it is the most important.

The consultant’s liability by the highest German civil court judgments do not tear down: However, is what comes from Karlsruhe from investment advisor perspective not all bad. The consultant’s liability by the highest German civil court judgments do not tear down: However, is what comes from Karlsruhe from investment advisor perspective not all bad. Because with his latest ruling the Supreme Court has made it clear that a liability of the intermediary does not automatically occurs in any case constellation and investors can contact losses not aufhaltend hand directly to the Advisor. The judgment was based on essentially the following facts: the plaintiff had drawn a participation of a closed real estate fund in 1996. Commencement of the term, even distributions were obtained, which however could be maintained not due to economic difficulties in the aftermath. The plaintiff sought damages for a defective according to his investment advice with regard to the participation in the procedure.

With the completion of an also implied possible Consulting agreement between investors and advisors to a consulting according to the BGH object-oriented obligation for the latter. In this regard, risks and characteristics of the system with critical expertise must be checked. The filtered results are to inform the investors over. Such an analysis by the mediator will refrain from this can lead to an oft-cited consultant liability. To the relief of the intermediary this arrives only if a risk would become recognizable via the investor would need clarification on or but if would become evident, that a recommendation of the plant is not investor – or object-fair. When but a there are reasonable grounds for such a notice which was not clear so far. The latest judgment of Karlsruhe provides here, however, a little clarity. Specifically, it was about a so-called guarantee and then related costs, which was not sufficiently known according to the plaintiff’s (issued by a Bank for a debtor in case of failure to adhere).