Landgericht Dresden (Dresden Regional Court) has awarded damages to an investor in the open-ended real estate fund “UniImmo: Wohnen ZBI” due to faulty investment advice (LG Dresden, judgment of September 10, 2026 – 9 O 2102/25). The judgment became final after Volksbank Dresden-Bautzen eG waived its right to appeal. The proceedings concerned, in particular, the disclosure of risks of loss, restrictions on disposal, obstacles to redemption, remuneration, and interrelationships connected with the distribution of the fund.
Investment in UniImmo: Wohnen ZBI
In 2018, on the recommendation of a bank adviser, the claimant and his wife purchased units in the open-ended real estate fund “UniImmo: Wohnen ZBI” with ISIN DE000A2DMVS1. They invested a total of EUR 14,000 through monthly savings instalments. They were looking for a low-risk investment.
In March 2024, the investors submitted a notice to redeem their fund units. In June 2024, the unit price was reduced by approximately 17 percent. Due to the notice period applicable to redemption, the redemption did not take effect until December 2025. The amount subsequently paid out was approximately EUR 10,777.
Damages equal to the difference in value
The Regional Court awarded the claimant approximately EUR 3,223. This amount corresponds to the difference between the documented contributions of EUR 14,000 and the sale proceeds of approximately EUR 10,777.
The court did not award the additional loss of profit claimed. In its assessment, the claimant had failed to provide sufficient evidence in this respect. The claimant therefore succeeded only in relation to the loss represented by the difference in value.
Court finds multiple disclosure obligations breached
The Regional Court considered the fund’s classification at the time as a low-risk investment to be defensible in principle. Nevertheless, according to the judgment, the bank was unable to prove that it had informed the claimant with sufficient specificity and clarity about the investment’s material characteristics and risks.
Risks and limited availability of the invested capital
The shortcomings in the advice concerned several points that were material to the investment decision:
- The claimant had not been adequately informed about the minimum holding period of 24 months.
- The twelve-month redemption notice period had not been adequately explained.
- The possibility of losses in value during the period preceding effective redemption had not been adequately presented.
- The possibility that the redemption of units could be suspended had not been adequately disclosed.
- The bank had failed to provide sufficient information about its own remuneration.
- Personnel and financial interrelationships between the fund management and fund distributor had not been disclosed to the required extent.
The minimum holding and redemption notice periods in particular mean that investors cannot access their invested capital at any time. At the same time, the value of the fund units may change during the period between submission of the redemption notice and actual payment.
Product information sheet did not replace a specific explanation
According to the judgment, in the specific case it was not sufficient for the risks to have been listed in writing in a product information sheet. It was also relevant whether the documents had been provided in good time, whether the investor had been able to take note of their contents, and whether there had been an opportunity to ask questions.
The judgment should not be understood as meaning that written product information is always irrelevant. Rather, the Regional Court focused on the circumstances of the specific advisory process and on proof that the information had been explained in a comprehensible manner. In this context, the court attributed only limited evidential weight to a suitability statement that had not been signed by the investor.
According to the judgment, the claimant’s vocational training as a bank clerk likewise did not release the bank from its disclosure obligations. His professional background therefore did not replace proof that the material characteristics and risks of the recommended investment had in fact been explained.
Interrelationships and distribution interests
The fund is managed by a company affiliated with Union Investment. Both Union Investment and the defendant Volksbank form part of the cooperative banking sector. The Regional Court found that the personnel and financial connections established in the specific case were subject to disclosure.
The court also criticised the inadequate information provided regarding the bank’s remuneration. Such payments may be relevant when assessing a potential interest in distributing the product. Here, too, the decisive factor was what information had actually been communicated to the investor during the advisory meeting.
Judgment final without review by a higher court
Volksbank Dresden-Bautzen eG did not appeal the judgment, explaining its decision on the basis of a cost-benefit assessment. As a result, the judgment became final.
Consequently, no appellate court reviewed the substance of the judgment. It therefore cannot readily be inferred from the judgment that all advice concerning the “UniImmo: Wohnen ZBI” fund was faulty or that all assessments made by the Regional Court can generally be applied to other circumstances. Whether a disclosure obligation was breached depends in particular on the course of the respective advisory meeting, the documents provided, and the investor’s personal investment objectives.
Significance for investment advice on open-ended real estate funds
The judgment makes clear that describing an investment as low-risk does not eliminate all further disclosure obligations. In the case of open-ended real estate funds, in addition to potential fluctuations in value, holding periods, redemption notice periods, and a possible suspension of unit redemptions may be material to the investment decision.
The judgment relates exclusively to the specific facts decided and the advisory circumstances established in that case. It does not automatically apply to other investors or other credit institutions. Instead, the relevant advisory situation, the contractual documents, and the specific course of the investment are decisive when assessing capital markets law issues.
MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte advises companies, investors, and high-net-worth individuals on matters relating to investments, investment advice, and potential claims for damages. Further information is available from our capital markets law advisory service.
