• Black Facebook Icon
  • Black Twitter Icon
  • Black Google+ Icon
  • Schwarz Blogger Icon
  • Schwarz YouTube Icon


Chronological sequence

05.12.2016 - 16.12.2016

Law firm from Geneva will be involved







Letter from de Preux Avocats to BCV regarding a claim for damages.

As it turned out, it was very difficult to find a lawyer's office in the canton of Vaud, which was able to help me deal with against BCV.

Finally, I found the law firm de Preux Avocats in the canton of Geneva.

At the beginning of December 2016 my lawyer de Preux Avocats sent out a letter to BCV.

[Dokument Nr. 48]


BCV’s confirmation upon receiving the letter from de Preux Avocats.

In the confirmation letter of the BCV, I am assured that the letter enjoys the fullest attention of the bank.

[Dokument Nr. 49]


Letter de Preux Avocats doubts the credibility of the letter of BCV.

De Preux Avocats doubt that BCV's declarations are honest and sincere.

[Dokument Nr. 50]


Letter from BCV consisting of a rejection of claims for damages

It seems that BCV - as promised in the letter [Dokument Nr. 49] of 08.12.2016 - has unfortunately not given its full attention to the letter. How else can it be explained that the credit sum of CHF 90,000 mentioned by Mr Pierre Godel is wrong?

The requested loan amount was CHF 125,000, as can be seen in the business plan. The amount of the compensation required was set at CHF 90,000 or CHF 87'034.44.

I would like to give every reader the opportunity to examine the truth of the statements made by Mr. Pierre Godel in his letter of 16 December 2016. My lawyer also takes a position on this in his letter [Dokument 60].

As I read on page 11 under point 53, my lawyer wrote in this letter from Mr. Godel: "Dans sa réponse du 16 décembre 2016, la BCV a présenté une nouvelle version des faits erronée et incohérente."


1. Allegation Pierre Godel: The documents would have been submitted 'during the month of March 2016'.

All documents requested by BCV at the meeting of March 11, 2016 were available to Mr. Meylan on March 13.

Letter from my lawyer de Preux Avocats [Dokument Nr. 60 - item 20, page6] "a few days later"

2. Allegation from Mr. Pierre Godel: A second demand from the BCV at the beginning of April would have been required to obtain information.

Mr. Meylan had to ask the same questions again, because he had not taken any notes during the first meeting on 11.03.2016. See also [Dokument Nr. 4]

Letter from my lawyer de Preux Avocats [Dokument Nr. 60 - item 25, page 6]

3. Allegation from Mr. Pierre Godel: At the time 11.04.2016 the credit request had already been rejected.

If this really had been so, why was the result not communicated to me? I would have been able to visit another credit institution or adjust the business plan according to the needs of the BCV if someone had contacted me.

Letter from my lawyer de Preux Avocats [Dokument Nr. 60 - item 26 und 27, page 7]

4. Allegation from Mr. Pierre Godel: Mr. Meylan would have fought for me to receive a credit financement from BCV.

If this had been the case, Mr. Meylan would have had to get in touch with me in order to discuss the problems and find a solution together. From the complete communication with Mr. Meylan, I can not tell in the least that this person had worked motivated on my project.

How could Mr. Meylan work for me if he could not even read the business plan in German?

Letter from my lawyer de Preux Avocats [Dokument Nr. 60 - item 26 and 27, page 7]

5. Allegation from Mr. Pierre Godel: Die finanzielle Resourcen wären nicht ausreichend gewesen.

Diese Aussage steht im krassen Widerspruch zu der Aussage meines Treuhänders Fiduciaire Paux. Siehe [Dokument Nr. 28].

Wäre meine persönliche finanzielle Situation wirklich so schlecht gewesen, wie von Herrn Godel behauptet, hätte Herr Paux sicherlich nicht mit mir ein Kreditinstitut aufgesucht. Die erwähnte Bürgschaft wurde auch von der Konkurrenzfirma im Verhältnis 1/3 zu 2/3 zusammen mit BCV finanziert.

In welcher Höhe müssen Sicherheiten vorhanden sein, um einen Bankkredit von CHF 125'000 erhalten zu können?

6. Allegation from Mr. Pierre Godel: Mr. Meylan had told me on 18.05.2016 that the loan application had been rejected.

If this really had been so, why was the result not communicated to me? I could have visited another credit institution. The further course of the events speaks a different language. See also date 30.06.2016 and [Dokument Nr. 16].

If the May 18, 2016 had indeed been the day on which Mr. Meylan had informed me that the loan application had been rejected:

1. there would have been no further need for Mr. Meylan to look further for 'solutions' for me.

2. why did Mr. Raynald Mayor and Mr. Patrick Blanc not mention this important date in their letter? On the contrary; Mr. Blanc apologized [Dokument Nr. 22] for the delayed in the BCV’s processing and the late reply.

This date was never mentioned in conversations with Mr. Paux.

Only Mr. Godel refers exclusively to this date, but without being able to provide a solid proof!

Letter from my lawyer de Preux Avocats [Dokument Nr. 60 - items 29 to 31, page 7]

[Dokument Nr. 51]



If the 18.05.2016 had actually been the decisive day for the credit rejection, why did I first have to switch on my legal costs insurance in order to get a written justification?

In Mr. Godel's letter there is suddenly no longer any statement that a transfer of the service to the Czech Republic is mentioned as being a reason for refusing the credit agreement.

Mr. Blanc's two other reasons for refusing to accept [Dokumnet Nr. 27] are completely rebutted by my lawyer in the document [Dokument Nr. 60 - items 43 and 45, page 9].

Next: Go to Conciliatory proceedings in Lausanne and lawsuit admission