Investors in the open-ended real estate fund currently cannot access their money
The open-ended real estate fund Wertgrund WohnSelect D was launched in April 2010. About 16 years later, the fund company has, according to the published information as of January 15, 2026, suspended both the issuance and the redemption (redemption of shares) of shares. For investors, this means primarily one thing: They cannot currently submit their shares for redemption as usual and therefore will not receive liquidity from the fund for the time being.
Such a suspension is a commonly known measure for open-ended real estate funds. It is intended to prevent substantial liquidity outflows short-term in response to extensive redemption requests, which could economically stress the fund. Historically, this approach is particularly known from periods of strained market conditions—such as during and after the financial crisis when several open-ended real estate funds were closed and partially liquidated later. Depending on the course, this can result in significant financial disadvantages for investors.
Open-ended real estate funds: Mechanism, protective regulations – and limits
Open-ended real estate funds primarily invest in properties whose sale typically is time-consuming. If there are high redemption requests, the existing liquidity reserve may not suffice to promptly accommodate the redemptions.
To reduce shock-like liquidity outflows, many open-ended real estate funds are subject to legal or regulatory protective mechanisms, particularly:
- Minimum holding period (often 24 months), before shares can generally be returned,
- Notice period (often 12 months), by which a redemption is to be announced beforehand.
These regulations can mitigate liquidity risks, but they do not eliminate them. Even recently, investors had to endure significant valuation adjustments with various products. The current suspension at Wertgrund WohnSelect D demonstrates that open-ended real estate funds, despite protective mechanisms, are not free of liquidity and market risks.
Reason: Liquidity is insufficient
According to the available information, it was stated as the reason that the redemption requests are high and the liquid funds were not sufficient to finance the redemption of the shares. As it is not expected that the liquidity situation will improve significantly through additional share issues in the short term, it was decided to suspend the share issue.
Legally, the suspension of redemptions in open real estate funds is generally possible, but it is time-limited. Typically, redemption can be suspended for a certain period (in many cases, up to a maximum of 36 months). What happens after such a period depends on further developments:
- Reopening by resuming share redemptions or
- continued closure and liquidation, where properties are sold.
If liquidation occurs, the sale of properties – depending on market conditions, time pressure, and the quality of the assets – can lead to price discounts. This can adversely affect the share value and thus the investors.
Important Note: No automatic breach of duty – but check for possible claims
The suspension of share redemptions in itself does not automatically mean that there is a breach of duty by advisors or banks. Nevertheless, many investors question whether they were properly informed about significant risks at the time of subscription or acquisition of the fund shares.
In the context of investment advice, extensive information and disclosure obligations apply. This includes – simply stated – in particular:
- The recommendation must match the risk profile and the investment goals of the customer (e.g., orientation towards security, liquidity needs, investment horizon).
- The significant risks of the investment must be disclosed, including those affecting availability/liquidity.
Open real estate funds are sometimes presented in sales as a “stable” or “safe” component. However, there are indeed risks, including:
- fluctuations in the real estate market,
- declining rental income or vacancies,
- increasing maintenance and renovation costs,
- Valuation risks (adjustments of market values),
- Liquidity risks up to (temporary) closure.
BGH: Closure and liquidity risk must be disclosed
According to the rulings of the Federal Court of Justice (judgments of April 29, 2014, Case No. XI ZR 477/12 and XI ZR 130/13), banks acting as intermediaries must inform investors without being asked about the closure risk and the possibility of suspending redemption of shares. The BGH classified this as a significant liquidity risk existing during the investment phase.
If such risks were not explained in the consultation, if they were downplayed, or if there was an insufficient reference to practical consequences (e.g., the temporary unavailability of the invested capital), this may, in individual cases, provide grounds for claims for damages.
Current decisions: Courts award damages (individual case decisions)
Recent case law also shows that investors can be successful in certain situations if disclosure obligations were violated. For example, the Münster Regional Court in a ruling dated January 15, 2026 (Case No. 114 O 7/25) granted a claim to an investor in the open-ended real estate fund UniImmo Wohnen ZBIDamages awarded. According to the reasoning, it was among other things relevant that there was not sufficient information about the 12-month notice period as a significant restriction on liquidity.
With the judgment of May 15, 2025 (Case No. 12 O 287/24), the Stuttgart Regional Court also awarded an investor of the open-ended real estate fund UniImmo Wohnen ZBI damages due to faulty investment advice.
Important: The mentioned rulings are individual case decisions; furthermore, some decisions are not legally binding. Whether claims can be derived from this for investors of Wertgrund WohnSelect D depends always on the concrete circumstances (time of purchase, advisory documentation, risk warnings, investor profile, product documents, etc.).
What investors can check now
Investors affected by the suspension of the redemption of shares can particularly examine the following points in a structured manner (and document them):
- What statements were made about availability/liquidity (particularly closure risk, notice period, minimum holding period)?
- Were risks explained comprehensibly or presented as “practically excluded”?
- What documents were provided (product information, sales prospectus, basic information sheet, advisory protocol)?
- Did the recommendation fit investment objectives and risk appetite (e.g., capital preservation, short-term liquidity needs)?
Additionally, it can be sensible to keep statute of limitations questions in view. Whether and when claims expire depends on the individual case and should be legally assessed if necessary.
Legal Notice / Transparency
This post does not constitute legal advice, but serves for general information purposes. It is based on the mentioned publicly disclosed key data and generally accessible case law. For a reliable assessment of potential claims, it always depends on the specific facts and available documents.
MTR Legal Attorneys advises investors in capital market law. If you have questions about the situation at Wertgrund WohnSelect D or possible courses of action, you can contact us.
