{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025227043390514632, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010090817356205853, 'mean_word_length': 4.940119760479042, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Case Note—Judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice of Germany) of 22 March 2011: Passion to Inform—BGH Expands Banks' Advisory Duties

In February 2011, a Bundesgerichtshof [BGH—Federal Court of Justice] decision caused a great media echo. The court convicted Germany's largest bank to pay about half a million Euros in damages for the breach of advisory duties. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, banking law evolved fast in German courts. The recent decision raises new questions concerning the advisory duties of a bank, when offering financial products to its clients. The article gives an insight to various factual backgrounds, which, as financial products of today, are somewhat complex. Another interesting aspect to this case is that there are numerous decisions of lower courts that dealt with the same product as the BGH did. The ruling is considered to be far-reaching and groundbreaking. This case note will look into the question how far this is true.