”
Wertgrund WohnSelect D – Redemption of units suspended
\n\n
Investors in the open-ended real estate fund currently cannot access their money
\n
The open-ended real estate fund Wertgrund WohnSelect D was launched in April 2010. Around 16 years later, according to the published information, the fund company suspended both the issuance and the redemption (repurchase) of units as of 15 January 2026. For investors, this primarily means one thing: they currently cannot submit their units for redemption as usual and therefore will not receive any liquidity from the fund for the time being.
\n\n
Such a suspension is an instrument known in practice for open-ended real estate funds. It is intended to prevent too much liquidity from flowing out at short notice in the event of extensive redemption requests, thereby putting the fund under economic pressure. Historically, this approach is known in particular from phases of strained market conditions – for example during and after the financial crisis, when several open-ended real estate funds were closed and in some cases later wound up. Depending on how events unfold, this can result in significant financial disadvantages for investors.
\n\n
Open-ended real estate funds: mechanism, protective provisions – and limits
\n
Open-ended real estate funds invest primarily in real estate, the sale of which is typically time-consuming. If there are high redemption requests, the existing liquidity reserve may not be sufficient to meet redemptions promptly.
\n\n
To reduce shock-like liquidity outflows, statutory and/or regulatory protection mechanisms apply to many open-ended real estate funds, in particular:
\n
- \n
- Minimum holding period (often 24 months) before units can generally be redeemed,
- Notice period (often 12 months), by which a redemption must be announced in advance.
\n
\n
\n\n
These requirements can mitigate liquidity risks, but they do not eliminate them. Even in more recent times, investors in various products have had to accept significant value adjustments. The current suspension at Wertgrund WohnSelect D shows that, despite protective mechanisms, open-ended real estate funds are not free of liquidity and market risks.
\n\n
Reason: liquidity is insufficient
\n
As justification – according to the information available – it was stated that redemption requests were high and that the liquid funds were not sufficient to finance the redemption of the units. Since it was not expected that the liquidity situation would improve materially in the short term through additional unit issuances, the issuance of units was also suspended.
\n\n
From a legal standpoint, the suspension of redemptions in the case of open-ended real estate funds is generally possible, but limited in time. Typically, redemptions can be suspended for a certain period (in many cases a maximum of up to 36 months). What happens after such a period depends on further developments:
\n
- \n
- Reopening by resuming the redemption of units, or
- continued closure and winding-up, in which the properties are sold.
\n
\n
\n\n
If it comes to winding-up, the sale of the properties – depending on the market environment, time pressure, and the quality of the assets – may lead to price discounts. This can adversely affect the unit value and thus the investors.
\n\n
Important note: no automatic breach of duty – but review of possible claims
\n
The suspension of unit redemptions does not, in itself, automatically mean that there has been a breach of duty by advisers or banks. Nevertheless, many investors ask whether, when subscribing for or acquiring the fund units, they were properly informed about material risks.
\n\n
In the context of investment advice, extensive information and disclosure obligations apply. This includes – in simplified terms – in particular:
\n
- \n
- The recommendation must match the customer’s risk profile and investment objectives (e.g. focus on security, liquidity requirements, investment horizon).
- There must be disclosure of the investment’s material risks, including those affecting availability/liquidity.
\n
\n
\n\n
In distribution, open-ended real estate funds are sometimes presented as a “stable” or “safe” addition. In fact, however, there are risks, including due to:
\n
- \n
- value fluctuations in the real estate market,
- declining rental income or vacancies,
- rising maintenance and refurbishment costs,
- valuation risks (adjustments of market values),
- liquidity risks up to and including (temporary) closure.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
German Federal Court of Justice (BGH): investors must be informed about closure and liquidity risk
\n
According to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice (judgments of 29 April 2014, file nos. XI ZR 477/12 and XI ZR 130/13), intermediary banks must inform investors without being asked about the closure risk and the possibility of suspending unit redemption. The BGH classified this as a material liquidity risk existing during the investment phase.
\n\n
If such risks were not explained in the advisory meeting, were downplayed, or if there was no sufficient indication of practical consequences (e.g., temporary unavailability of the invested capital), this can, in individual cases, provide starting points for claims for damages.
\n\n
Recent decisions: Courts award damages (case-by-case decisions)
\n
More recent case law also shows that investors can succeed in certain constellations if duties to inform were breached. For example, the Regional Court of Münster, in its judgment of 15 January 2026 (file no. 114 O 7/25), awarded damages to an investor in the open-ended real estate fund UniImmo Wohnen ZBI. According to the reasoning, it was relevant, among other things, that there had been insufficient disclosure about the 12-month notice period as a material restriction on liquidity.
\n\n
In its judgment of 15 May 2025 (file no. 12 O 287/24), the Regional Court of Stuttgart also awarded damages to an investor in the open-ended real estate fund UniImmo Wohnen ZBI due to faulty investment advice.
\n\n
Important: The judgments mentioned are case-by-case decisions; in addition, some decisions are not final. Whether investors in Wertgrund WohnSelect D can derive claims from this always depends on the specific circumstances (time of purchase, advisory documentation, risk disclosures, investor profile, product documents, etc.).
\n\n
What investors can review now
\n
Investors affected by the suspension of unit redemption can, in particular, review (and document) the following points in a structured manner:
\n
- \n
- What statements were made regarding availability/liquidity (in particular closure risk, notice period, minimum holding period)?
- Were risks explained in a comprehensible manner or rather presented as “practically excluded”?
- Which documents were provided (product information, sales prospectus, key information document, advisory record)?
- Did the recommendation fit the investment objective and risk tolerance (e.g., capital preservation, short-term liquidity needs)?
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
In addition, it may be sensible to keep an eye on limitation issues. Whether and when claims become time-barred depends on the individual case and, if necessary, should be assessed legally.
\n\n
Legal notice / Transparency
\n
This article does not constitute legal advice, but serves general information purposes. It is based on the key data mentioned that have been made publicly known and on generally accessible case law. A reliable assessment of possible claims always depends on the specific facts and the documents available.
\n\n
MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte advises investors in capital markets law. If you have questions about the situation regarding Wertgrund WohnSelect D or about possible courses of action, you can get in touch.
“
