Anlageberatung, Risikoaufklärung und Rechtswidrigkeitszusammenhang

Die jüngste Finanzkrise hat Anlegerkapital in ungeahntem Ausmaß vernichtet. Gerade Kleinanleger wurden vielfach um ihre gesamten Ersparnisse gebracht. Es war daher zu erwarten, daß auf die Gerichte mit gewisser zeitlicher Verzögerung eine Welle von Klagen hereinbrechen würde. Diese richten sich zu einem nicht unerheblichen Teil auch gegen Anlageberater und stützen sich dabei auf den Vorwurf unzureichender Aufklärung über die mit der Vermögensveranlagung verbundenen Risiken. Der Beitrag wird ausgewählte Rechtsprobleme der Risikoaufklärung und des Rechtswidrigkeitszusammenhangs beleuchten, die im Kontext der Haftung für fehlerhafte Anlageberatung häufig auftreten.Liability for negligent investment advice raises a whole range of intricate legal problems, including the advisor’s duties of disclosure, issues of causation and burden of proof, the identification of the relevant damage and of the adequate form of compensation as well as the role of contributory negligence on the part of the investor. An aspect that has so far not been given sufficient attention is the requirement of a specific nexus between the wrongfulness of the advisor’s conduct and the damage caused (Rechtswidrigkeitszusammenhang). The basic question that arises in this context is whether the advisor is liable where, but for his negligent advice, the investor would not have made a particular decision which later turned out to be detrimental, but where the pecuniary damage eventually suffered by the investor has nothing to do with the risk that negligently failed to be disclosed. In this paper, it will be argued that the investor can demand full restoration in kind, which means that the advisor has to supply the investor with the instruments he would hypothetically have chosen if the advice had been correct, but that the investor has to pay a certain sum of money in exchange for the “benefit” he receives by being compensated for a pecuniary damage for which he wouldn’t otherwise be entitled to claim compensation. The advisor must be fully liable, however, where the risk which eventually materialised had been caused by the risk that negligently failed to be disclosed. Where all that can be proved is that the risk which materialised had been aggravated by the other risk, the general rules on the concurrence of relevant and irrelevant risks apply. The burden of proof for the absence of a specific nexus between the wrongfulness of the investment advisor’s conduct and the damage lies with the advisor.